1920-05-06

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON BATTLEFIELDS MEMORIALS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. -C. MEWBURN (Hamilton East) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to consider and report upon the question of what memorials, if any, shall be erected on the battlefields of the late war.
Mr. MEWBURN moved:: That the first report of the Special Committee appointed to consider and report upon the question of what memorials, if any, should be erected upon the battlefields of the late war, together with the statements and evidence attached thereto, be printed for the information of members of the House, and that rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of the requisite notice for such a motion, it can, of course, be entertained only by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent, Ont.) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 112, to provide for the standardization of parts of agricultural machinery.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not seen a copy of the Bill and, therefore, I do not know what it contains; but from the title, as it appears on the Order Paper, there may be some question whether the subject matter has reference to trade, and if it has, the hon. member could proceed only by resolution. Subject to that consideration, the Bill may receive its introduction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. McCOIG:: The object of this Bill is not as some hon. members seem to think. We are asking for the standardization, not of agricultural implements, but simply of some of the interchangeable parts, and that can be very easily done without any great expense to the manufacturers and with great convenience to users of agricultural machinery throughout the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
SENATE BILES.	.
Bill No. 110 (letter Z2 of the Senate), for the relief of Nellie Adeline Wallace.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. Ill (Letter A3 of the Senate), for the relief of Marion Olive Booth.-Mr. Blake.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What Is the total yearly amount of salary paid to those who are to receive bonuses of $12,500,000?
2.	What will be the average percentage per $1,000 of salary?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: The preparation of an answer to this question would involve a computation in all branches of the Government of the salaries of those receiving a bonus, as distinct from all who are paid current rates of pay, and the average percentage on the basis of $1,000 of salary, one would think, would not have any particular value, because the bonus is not based on percentages. If the hon. member who has
propounded the question has any particular information he desires to get, I should be glad to assist him in getting it, but it would involve a great deal of time and trouble to prepare an answer to this question as it stands.


REVEREND A. E. BURKE.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Was the Reverend A. E. Burke connected with the. Chaplain Service of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the late war?
2.	If so, when did such connection cease and why?
3.	Prior to, during, or after his connection with the said chaplain service, did Dr. Burke visit Bermuda or the West Indies?
4.	If so, for what purpose?
5.	Did Dr. Burke present a bill or account to the Government or to one of its departments for the said trip?
6.	If so, what was the amount, when and by whom was it paid?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	21st September, 1017. Surplus in his rank to establishment and requirements.
3.	Yes.
4.	While on leave with permission to proceed to Washington, DjC., he appears to have visited the West Indies (Cuba).
5.	Yes; to the Department of Militia and Defence.
6.	$882.20. Payment refused by the Department of Militia and Defence.


MILITIA DEPARTMENT PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Are arrangements being made for the making of a number of permanent appointments throughout the Department of Militia
and Defence?
2.	If so, how many returned soldiers have been recommended for permanency by the department?
3.	How many civilians?
4.	Of the civilians recommended, is there in each case no returned soldier presently employed by the department possessing the minimum qualifications for the position being filled?
5.	What is the guiding principle in the selection of men for permanency?
6.	If length of service is considered, will the military service of a returned man be reckoned against the clerical service of a man who did not proceed overseas?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: A classification of the Department of Militia and Defence has been submitted to the Civil Service Commission. In every case where a returned soldier is holding a position which it is proposed to make permanent, his name has been submitted for appointment.
With regard to the other positions, it has been suggested to the Civil Service Commission that these positions should be thrown

open to competition, thereby giving returned soldiers an opportunity of obtaining appointment to the same.


TORONTO SUBURBAN RAILWAY-PAID-UP CAPITAL.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	What was the actual paid-up capital of the Toronto Suburban railway on the 27th September, 1918?
2.	Who were president, vice-president, directors and general manager of said company on said date?
3.	What amount was paid to this company for (a) actual costs, (b) other rights and privileges?
4.	When were said sums paid?
5.	Did the Canadian Northern Railway buy only the stock of this company or did it buy the movable and unmovable property of this company ?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	$1,500,000.
2.	President, Sir William Mackenzie; directors, Mr. L. W. Mitchell, Mr. F. H. Phip-pen, Mr. C. G Royce; general manager, Mr. C. G. Royce.
3.	As the Canadian Northern Railway acquired all the assets of this company by assuming the liabilities there was no actual cash transaction between the companies.
4. Answered by No. 3.	,
5. Answered by No. 3.


TORONTO EASTERN-PAID-UP CAPITAL.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	What was the actual paid-up capital of the Toronto Eastern Company on the 27th September, 1918?
2.	Who were president, vice-president, directors and general manager of said company on said date?
3.	What amount was paid to this company for (a) actual costs, (b) other rights and privileges?
4.	When were said sums paid?
5.	Did the Canadian Northern Railway buy only the stock of this company or did it buy the movable and unmovabie property of this company?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	How many persons are employed on the staff of the Civil Service Commission?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What are the respective salaries of said persons?


TAXATION OF MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St, James):: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to an item in this morning's Gazette, in the third column of page 4, regarding the proposed taxation of unlicensed mutual fire insurance companies. I shall summarize the article before putting my question. It is headed "Mutuals Face Taxation-Probably by Government Bill; Hope Less than 15 P.C.," and goes on to say that a committee of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association waited on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries yesterday regarding this proposed taxation and were very courteously received-


Mr. BUREAU:: Something new.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -but were not given much encouragement to hope that these companies would not be taxed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Cannot the hon. member put his question?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am coming to it. The report goes on to state that any proposal in this connection would probably not be brought down in the Budget, but later as a Government Bill, and the tax may not be 15 per cent. I rwould ask the Minister of Finance if this report is accurate? My reason for asking is that I put a question on the Order Paper with reference to this matter and I simply got the reply that the information would be given when the legislation was brought down. I should like to know if this information was given to a private delegation and refused to a member of the House.	.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: I do not know whether the hon. member is satisfied with what was told the delegation, but if he is, I am afraid he is satisfied with very little. The Government are looking for revenues. They are considering revenues at every possible point. It has not yet been determined what will be done in connection with the matter to which my hon. friend has referred. As I stated

yesterday, the Government's intention will be made known when the appropriate legislation if any, is brought down.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-PENSIONS COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT BY MR. HUjME CRONYN, CHAIRMAN OF THE PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HUME CRONYN (London):: - Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The Ottawa Citizen in this morning's issue publishes the letter of resignation of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peek) from the Committee of Pensions and Reestablishment. In that letter the following statements are made:	.
I therefore resign, not only to protest in the naipe of the widows of the hundreds of brave men whom I had the honour of leading in the late war, but as a protest against a deplorable attempt on two successive days to camouflage the incident, and also as a protest in the name of common honesty and decency. I cannot bring myself to believe that actions such as have taken place are a credit to the committee or Parliament.
With the consent of the Pensions Committee, I desire to state that at this morning's session, on the written request of Mr. C. S. Blue, the official reporter present when the statements complained of were uttered by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. H. H. McLean), the whole question was fully investigated and the original stenographic notes-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand the hon. member rises to a question of privilege on behalf of the committee, or on behalf of himself? In either case, I have to point out that it is a well-established rule of the House that there can be no reference in the House to the proceedings of any committee of the House until the report of that committee is before the House for consideration. Bearing that in mind, it is somewhat difficult to know how the hon. gentleman could properly refer to the proceedings before a committee, that committee not having reported.


Hume Cronyn: The question of privilege is one in which I as chairman of the committee, am distinctly involved. I make this explanation on my own behalf, although I make it with the consent of the committee.
The whole question was fully investigated and the original stenographic notes were transcribed under oath by Mr. Blue.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret very much to have to interrupt the hon. member, but if he desires to take exception to some statement with reference to himself which has been made in the public press, and to give a denial thereto, he -would be in order on a question of privilege. On the other hand, if he wishes -to set right a proceeding which took place before a committee of the House he certainly would not be in order in doing so at this stage.


Hume Cronyn: I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to put this statement on record.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):: In view of the position which this matter has assumed, both for members of Parliament and the public, it seems to me it would be well that an explanation of it should be heard, and I hope that the unanimous consent of the House will be given.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course, the House can give its unanimous consent, and under the circumstances I have very great pleasure in putting the question whether the hon. member shall have the unanimous consent of the House to make his statement.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: If it be in accordance with the rules might I ask the hon. gentleman who leads the Government to repeat the remarks he has just made. I did not hear a syllable of them, and therefore I could not possibly act intelligently on a question based on any argument he delivered to the House.


George Green Foster: What I intended to say was this: Inasmuch as this matter has assumed a good deal of prominence and is of interest both to members of Parliament and to the public outside, I think it would be well that an authoritative statement should be made and go out to the country, and in that sense I think it would be a wise proceeding for us to give unani

mous consent to hearing a statement from the responsible chairman of the committee.


Jacques Bureau: Is the hon.
member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) present:


Michael Clark: If the hon. member is allowed to make a statement by unanimous consent, I should like to know how far the House will be allowed to go into the whole question. I should like to know exactly how far we are going against what is the rule, as stated by yourself, Mr. Speaker.


George Green Foster: Where we would seem to get would be this: Instead of having conflicting statements first from one side and then from the other, we should have what I suppose might be considered a disinterested authoritative statement from the chairman of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There can be no debate upon the calling of the Orders of the. Day. I take it that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) does not give his consent to the statement being made by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn).


Michael Clark: I do not want to put myself in opposition to any sentiment that is general all over the House, but I should like to know on what ground the leader of the House can call the statement of the chairman of the committee the authoritative statement. The statement of the hon. member for Skeena, if it differs from the statement of the chairman, is just as authoritative to members of this House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not see how we can have debate on this question. It seems to me the House must either give or refuse unanimous consent. If any one member objects, unanimous consent, of course, cannot be given. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member (Mr. Cronyn) should have leave to make his statement?


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: The hon. member for Skeena is not present this afternoon and I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the propriety of discussing this question on a motion for the adjournment of the House, to-morrow, for instance, when the hon. member for Skeena may be present and explain his side of the question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall have to ask the hon. member, in view of the fact that he cannot obtain the unanimous consent of the House, to refrain from making any further statement at the present time.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill No. 108 to amend the Exchequer Court Act:
George Green Foster: The Bill has not been distributed and I do not know whether the leader of the Opposition will object to our proceeding.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: I would point out to my hon. friend that we did not conclude yesterday's business until one

o'clock this morning and this measure w'as given its first reading only yesterday. I would therefore ask that this order stand.
Motion stands. '



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from May 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12 (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.-Mr. Boivin in -the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When progress was last reported upon this Bill all of the clauses and -schedules had been read and considered. Paragraph (k) of clause 2, clauses, 29, 32, 37, 44, 45, 63 and 101, the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Gloucester to clause 37 and by the hon. the Acting Solicitor 'General to clauses .29. 44 and 101 have -been allowed to stand for further consideration. The other clauses have been adopted. Clauses 19 and 76 which provide for the expenditure of money cannot be adopted until the House has concurred in the required resolution. The question is upon the amendment proposed to clause 29. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: What is the amendment, Mr. Chairman?


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Guthrie moves to amend clause 29 by adding to the said clause the following words: .
Provided that no disability imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection 4 of section S of " The Naturalization Act," chapter thirty-eight of the Statutes of 1919, (first session) shall disentitle a person on that ground alone to the said certificate.


Jacques Bureau: Last night wdien we had a discussion on this clause the Acting Solicitor 1 General intimated that it was not the intention of the Act to disfranchise any one, but when my hon. friend from Lambton urged that those who had been in this country for a certain number of years and had proved them-selves good citizens should be afforded some means whereby to acquire citizenship in order to enable them to vote at elections, the Naturalization Act was raised as the bar sinister to any such proposition. I gathered from the remarks that were made in that respect that the Naturalization Act was regarded by a great many hon. gentlemen on the other side as something sacred. British citizenship, in the minds of those hon. .gentlemen, is a holy ark that ought to be surrounded by every safeghard and precaution so that its purity
may remain absolutely inviolate. Now, Mr. Chairman, accepting that high moral creed of my hon. friends, I do not see why, when the Naturalization Act says that the wife of a British subject is a British subject and the wife of an alien is an alien, we should give *0 male British subjects the right to vote but deny their wives, who happen to be alien, the privilege their husbands enjoy. We cannot contend that these women have been remiss in the duties of citizenship because they 'have not personally claimed naturalization. By law they have the same status as their husbands in regard to citizenship. But to-day we are say-mg to them that unless they were born on the American continent they must go to a judge and get him to certify that they are entitled to vote, in spite of the fact that the law says they can. Among those voters wlw are naturalized by law there are many Italians and Belgians who are married to French women: and the conclusion has forced itself upon me that the Government is introducing the Naturalization Act in this case because they are afraid of the votes of these women. They know that the women are more sensitive to injustice than perhaps men are, and they are afraid that the uses and abuses to which Orders in Council have been put, and the nefarious ways in which the business of the country has been conducted, will be keenly felt by the women. If this ark of British citizenship is so profoundly sacred to my hon. friends opposite, why in reason's name should they desecrate in order to deprive certain inoffensive and innocent people from a right which belongs to them? If the 'Government are afraid of the female vote let them be manly enough to come out and say so and eliminate entirely the enfranchisement of the other sex. If they are afraid that the women will go against them let them say outright that no women shall have the vote. But if the women deserve full citizenship by way of recognition of all that they have done in behalf of the country and the intelligence they have shown, then I say that they ought to be put on the same footing as men. I for one cannot support a measure that will tend to make the franchise more difficult for women who are entitled to it than for men, merely by reason of their sex.


Mr. CANNON:: Clause 29 which gives the qualification of electors reads: 1
(1)	Save as in this Act otherwise provided, every person, male or female, shall be qualified to^ vote at the election of a member who, not being: an Indian ordinarily resident on an 133
Indian reservation,
(a)	is a British subject by birth or naturalization ; and,
(b)	is of the full age of twenty-one years-and,
(c)	has ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
If I understand the first paragraph correctly, every man and every woman in *Canada who is a British subject, twenty-one years of age, and has resided in the electoral district for at least twelve months prior to the election, will be given a vote. This first paragraph establishes a very broad basis for the electoral franchise. When the minister introduced the Bill about a month ago he said that he and the Government generally wanted a fair, broad and generous franchise. His wishes would have been more completely carried out if paragraph 2 had been omitted andi the section confined to the first paragraph. Paragraph 2 is as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, the allegiance or nationality of a person, as it was at the birth of such person, shall be deemed incapable of being changed, or of having, been changed, merely by reason or in consequence of marriage or -change of allegiance or naturalization of any other person, or otherwise than by personal naturalization of such first mentioned person. Provided, however, -that this subsection shall not apply to any person born on -the continent of North America, nor to any person who in person applies -to and obtains from any judge having jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings, a -certificate under -the hand of such judge and the seal, if any, of his court, to the effect following:
Then follows the certificate. As I understand it, this second paragraph limits and- -restricts the basis upon which the franchise is granted in the first part of the section, having the effect of excluding the wives and children of naturalized British subjects in Canada-wives and children who have not personally -been naturalized, but -who are British subjects on account of the naturalization of husband or father.
When this clause -first came up for discussion before the committee, the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) pointed out that its effect would be to disfranchise a considerable number of persons; that if the -electoral law was read in conjunction with the Naturalization Act, persons who were not at present naturalized would have to wait ten years before -they could obtain their certificate of naturalization, and would therefore be unable to obtain the franchise until 1928. The Acting Solicitor General



yesterday brought in the following amendment to section 29:
Provided that no disability imposed by paragraph Ob) of subsection 4 of section 8 of "The Naturalization Act," chapter 38 of the statutes of 1519 (first session), shall disentitle a person on that ground alone to the said certificate.
That amendment has reference to the following subsection in the Naturalization Act:
No certificate of naturalization shall, before the expiration of a period of ten years after the termination of the present war, be granted in Canada to any subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty, but this provision shall not apply to a person who,
(1)	having served in His Majesty's forces or in the forces of His Majesty's Allies or of any country acting in naval or military co-operation with His Majesty was not discharged from such service by reason of his enemy nationality, sympathy or associations; or,
(2)	is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments ; or,
(3)	was at birth a British subject.
As I understand it, the Acting Solicitor General's amendment relates not to the case of women and children, but simply to the case of the men. But the men are in no way affected by section 29, so that the amendment does not in any way improve that section. The amendment provides that even though certain persons may not be naturalized for ten years to come, they are not debarred from obtaining a certificate. Women and children do not need to be naturalized, Mr. Chairman. Section 11 of the Naturalization Act provides that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject-not by birth, not by naturalization; simply a British subject.
Take the case of an American who came to Canada and was naturalized and became a British subject after having lived in Canada the necessary length of time; the wife of that American becomes a British subject by the mere fact that her husband has become a British subject. An Austrian crossed over to America, came to Canada and was naturalized and became a British subject under our law. In accordance with the provisions of the Naturalization Act, the wife of that Austrian is a British subject. It cannot be denied-and the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) last night bears me out-that the wife of a British subject by naturalization or by birth is a British subject no matter whether her husband is an Austrian, a German, an American, a Frenchman, or a Belgian.
IMr. Cannon.1
Now, what about the children? Section 13 of the Naturalization Act, subsection 1, provides that the children of a man who is a naturalized British subject are themselves British subjects unless the father chooses subsequently to change his own nationality. Therefore I say that according to the Act as it reads now, the wife and the children of a British subject by naturalization are British subjects. The argument brought forward yesterday by the Acting Solicitor General, by the President of the Privy Council, and even by the Minister of Justice, was to the effect that section 29 had to be put in the law on account of the Naturalization Act as it now reads, and that it would be impossible for this Parliament to amend, change or alter that Act because it was the result of an agreement between the Canadian Government and the Imperial Government. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is no argument at all, because even if the Naturalization Act remains as it is to-day, these women and children are British subjects, and should and would be given a vote under our Franchise Act if paragraph two of section 29 was not added to the law.
As to the amendment which is proposed by the Acting Solicitor General I think it has no bearing on the case. Section two is an amendment to the Naturalization Act. The ministers and the supporters of the Government have contended that we should not touch the Naturalization Act- that if we did so it would be a breach of faith with the Imperial authorities. Well, what did the Government do? They introduced a paragraph in clause 29 of this Franchise Act which in itself is ,an amendment to the Naturalization Act, because it expressly says that people who are British subjects according to the existing law will not be treated as British subjects at election time but will have to follow special methods and follow a special piocess before they are given a ballot. It says, Mr. Chairman, that a woman -who, according to section eleven, is a British subject in every way, shape or form, will have to go before a tribunal, and will have to be given a certificate, and that a judge who refuses to give that certificate will have the right to debar that person who is a British subject by law from casting her vote at an election. Paragraph two has also the same result and. the same consequence as regards the children. According to the Naturalization Act these children are British subjects. The first paragraph of clause 29 of the franchise law says that all Brit-

ish subjects aged twenty-one years, and having a certain period of residence in Canada, are entitled to vote. Notwithstanding the fact that these children may have lived in Canada for thirty years and, that they are British subjects for all other purposes, despite the fact that they are British citizens cannot be denied or challenged, the Government introduced into this law a subparagraph to clause 29 which means that those children will have to go before a judge or a tribunal and will have to' obtain a certificate before they are placed on the same level or the same standing as every other British subject in this country. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is altogether unfair and altogether arbitrary, and that this subparagraph ought to be struck out of the Bill altogether. The Minister of the Interior, speaking in the name of and on behalf of the Government, rose in this House the other day and said that the remarks made by the member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) " have shown that there is such a condition and such a state of things in Canada that we ought to bring in. an amendment." The amendment was brought in, but I ask the Minister of the Interior-or any other member of the Government, or any supporter of the Government-to explain how the amendment brought in yesterday can help these wives or help these children to whom I have referred. The amendment simply refers to a clause saying that within ten years after the termination of war no naturalization certificate shall be issued. These women and children do not need these naturalization certificates. According to the law of the country they are British subjects; and the Government by this law is bimply withdrawing from them rights which were guaranteed to them-firstly when they were naturalized through the operation .of law; and secondly-rights which were guaranteed anew when the Naturalization Act of 1919 was passed by this Parliament.
I assert, that the present debate is one of the most important that ever took place in' this House. Are we, once and for all, going to lay down the rule that this country will malre a contract with people and respect that contract, or are we going to lay down the rule that we can bring people into this country under false pretenses, and break the contracts that we made with those people and the laws which protect them vThen it suits our purposes, and treat our existing law-our existing certificates of naturalization and the sovereign rights of citizenship 133*	-
in this country-as an ordinary scrap of paper? I think the Government has no right to do that, and that the House should exercise such a pressure upon it that the clause will be changed and every man, woman and child in Canada will know justice and fairness shall prevail when it comes to the rights of the franchise.
Mr. COWAN; When did we enter into a contract with the wives of aliens to whom the hon. gentleman has referred, that they would have the right to vote when they came into Canada?


Lucien Cannon: The law of our country
says that if the hon. member for Regina comes from Belgium, settles in Regina, lives there for a certain period of years, and behaves himself in such a way as to show himself to be a good citizen, he is to be given a certificate of naturalization, and.he becomes a British subject, enjoying all the rights and privileges of British citizenship, and that his wife and children also have the same privileges and the same rights. That is the law.


Mr.   OOWAN@: We are only giving that
privilege to them now. Consequently we never had any previous contract with the parties to whom my hon. friend refers.


Lucien Cannon: I am awfully sorry to disagree with the hon. member but I know something about the law of my country and the rule-which is just as old as the naturalization law itself-is to the effect that the naturalization of a British subject carries with it the naturalization of his wife. So much is this the case that I might quote to my hon. friend the old French saying which declares as regards the wife, "Qui prend mari prend pays," "She who takes a husband takes his country." Who ever heard, Mr. Chairman, that in any properly organized country the husband can be of one nationality, and that the wife in the same household should be of another nationality?


Hugh Guthrie: You will find it in the
United States.
Mr. CANNON. Who ever heard that in any properly politically organized country the husband could he of one nationality, the wife of another nationality, and the children of a third nationality? Laws are based on rules of common sense. But what is the position created by this law? The Government, afraid of what they call the foreign vote, have taken, I may say, a circuitous means of excluding from the polls people

who are British subjects and who have a right to record their votes at the next election.
The other night I heard the member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) discussing this question. I have great, respect for that gentleman, but to tell the truth, Mr. Chairman, I have more respect for his opinions on railway matters than I have for his opinions on naturalization laws. The member for Algoma was basing his arguments on this question: Are we going to admit on an equal footing at the polls our enemies of yesterday. Then with his usual fluency the hon. member made a very patriotic appeal to this committee. But that is not the question at all, Mr. Chairman. We do not want to take our enemies of yesterday and put them on an equal footing with Canadian citizens we are onljr asking that those who are British subjects should remain so not only when it comes to making private contracts, not only when it comes to paying taxes, but that they should be British subjects even when it comes to exercising the franchise. That is what we want.
There is a principle of constitutional law, which is well recognized in every country living under the British constitution-the principle of no taxation without representation. We were told yesterday that people who died a hundred ye .rs ago should not be quoted in this House. I think that that ruling is very hard on our Lord who died two thousand years ago. But I will refer to the history of England, and that history records that the greatest constitutional struggles were fought to establish that principle of, no taxation without representation. To-day in this House we may be divided as Liberals on the one side and as Tories on the other, but the Tories of today were the Liberals of a hundred years ago. There are no such Tories either in Canada or outside as there were in England only a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago.


Mr. McMASTER:: They are a couple of generations behind.


Lucien Cannon: I say that every public man ought to support the principle for which John Hampden fought, the principle which brought about the English Revolution, the principle which brought Charles the First to the scaffold-a principle which is not only radical and liberal, but which should be respected by every man who knows anything about the history of England or appreciates constitutional liberty. To-day the wives and children of these British subjects are treated as citizens of Can-

ada, and as such they have to pay their share of taxation into the public purse. They were British subjects yesterday, they are British subjects to-day, and they will be British subjects to-morrow notwithstanding the provisions of the franchise law, and I contend that we have no right to exclude them from the franchise.
I admire the way in which the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) has conducted this Bill through committee. He was always willing to accept every fair suggestion whether made by hon. members on his own side or by hon. members on this side of the House. And the question that I put to him to-day, through, you, Mr. Chairman, is one that should appeal to a member of the Bar and to a legal mind. I ask the Acting Solicitor General, through you, Mr. Chairman, to say: Is it a fair legal proposition to say, on the one hand, that a woman is a British subject, enjoying all the rights and privileges of British citizenship and, on the other hand, to say that, notwithstanding her British citizenship, she will not be allowed to vote, or will be allowed to vote only after having gone through certain formalities that no other British subject in Canada is obliged to go through? Is it fair, is it legal, is it logical? I say that it is not fair, and I think I have proved that it is not fair. I say that it is not legal, because the status of a person cannot be changed by one law and re-established by the other. To-day either I am a British subject or I am not; and if I am a British subject in the one sense, I am a British [DOT]subject in every other sense. Therefore not only is it not fair, and not legal, but it is not logical.
How can you expect these people to understand that Canada is a land of democracy and of freedom if you treat them in this way? How can you expect them to have faith in the future of our country if to-day, to suit the whim of a small faction on the Government side that represents the prejudices of a small section of the people of this country, these British subjects are turned away from the polls as if they were not worthy to cast their vote and help decide our political issues?
I do hope that the Acting Solicitor General will reconsider this clause and will see to it that every British subject in Canada be given a vote. When this Bill was introduced the Acting Solicitor General declared from his seat that the franchise was to be given to every British subject of the age of twenty-one years having the requisite qualifications as to residence. Here are British subjects-British subjects according

to the law passed in 1919, yet notwithstanding that law, notwithstanding the declaration of the Acting Solicitor General, these people will be deprived of their right to vote unless they have pre-4 p.m. viously obtained a certificate.
I have seen examples of the most intricate pieces of legislation introduced by this Government, but I assert that this particular legislation is without parallel, and I challenge any hon. member to cite similar legislation passed by any democratic country which claims to be guided by ideals of freedom and liberty. We are not asking-and I repeat it, Mr. Chairman-we are not asking that our enemies of yesterday be given the vote and be put on the same footing as British subjects but we are asking that justice be done to people who were British subjects yesterday, who are British subjects to-day, and who will be British subjects to-morrow. That is our whole case. It is a case of fairness, it is a case of justice, and it is a case that ought to be favourably considered by the Government. What remedy is proposed by the amendment drafted by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen)? None at all. The amendment has no bearing on section 29.


Hugh Guthrie: Just to clear that matter up-if there is any question about that, we are not going to press the amendment.


Lucien Cannon: The point I wish to make is this. The Acting Solicitor General says in this House: "What we want is fairness." The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) gets up-	i


Hugh Guthrie: I understood it was the hon. member for Waterloo North who wanted this.


Lucien Cannon: I do not know who wanted it, but I will explain what I think of it. My hon. friend (Mr. Euler) makes certain declarations in this House. The Government, officially, through the mouth of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), says: "we shall see that that condition of things disappears and that a proper remedy is brought in." This is the remedy, and I defy any member of the Government to prove that the remedy, as drafted, and as introduced by the Acting Solicitor General, has any bearing whatsoever on clause 29 concerning women and children. There is another class, a class of people who are not British subjects, or who have lost their certificates of naturalization. The hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson) said that those people who are not British
subjects, who never cared to be naturalized, although they may have lived for years in Canada, showed that they did not deserve to become British subjects. The hon. member may be right in certain cases, but this is not the case of all the persons referred to. At the time of Confederation in 1867- this is political history known to every member of the House-it was agreed between the two existing parties at that time that foreigners living in Ontario would be given the right to vote without their being sworn in any way. What was the result? Those people went to the polls; they were admitted as electors; they were granted, every right and privilege of British citizenship, and they naturally never thought oi going before a court or -a judge to obtain a certificate, as the Government of this country were giving them all the rights and privileges of British citizenship. Most ot those people are now dead; some, but only a few, still live. But what about their children, born outside of 'Canada, people who may be now forty, fifty, sixty years of age, who have lived in Canada practically all their lives? If their fathers were not British subjects, strictly speaking, according to the law, if those boys or girls were born outside of Canada, they are not British subjects. Could not something be done for those people, who are not foreigners who arrived in this country only two or three or five years ago, but who are people who have lived in Canada, for twenty-five, thirty or forty years and who are good citizens, in some cases the best citizens of this country?
Shall Canada refuse to do something for them? We are answered by the statement that the Imperial Act adopted by the Parliament of Canada cannot be amended. Let that be so; but why not add to clause 29 of this Bill a very simple paragraph stating that people who have lived in this country for ten or fifteen years, who had formerly been given the ballot, should have a right to vote, just as we did for the Indians last night, for the purposes of this Act? That would not be giving naturalization. We would not be putting aside the Naturalization Act of 1919; but we would be fair and just; we would be giving to those people something to which they are entitled. It was very simple for the Acting Solicitor General last night to amend the Indian Act as regards the franchise. He simply proposed the insertion of a clause whereby an Indian under certain conditions would have a right to vote. The Indian Act says expressly that no Indian has a right to vote in this country.


Hugh Guthrie: Is my hon. friend quite right in that statement? Since last night, I have looked into that, and either I am wrong or he is right.


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about that.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I agree on that.
We cannot both be right, I mean.


Lucien Cannon: But the Acting Solicitor General by that clause amended the Indian Act as it exists in this country.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I did not.


Lucien Cannon: That is, an Indian ordinarily living on an Indian Reserve, being a ward of the Government, has no right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not in the Indian Act.


Mr.   GANNON@: I say that the law as it
exists to day is to the effect that an Indian, ordinarily resident on an Indian Reserve, being a ward of the Government, has no right to voe. Notwithstanding that law, notwithstanding the express provisions of it, the Acting Solicitor General says in this House: "If an Indian has served in the Canadian army or the Imperial army or in any of the Allied armies, he will be given the right to vote." The amendment is good and I supported it; but if it be as easy as that for the Acting Solicitor General to go through the Indian Act-


Hugh Guthrie: That does not conflict
with the Indian Act, as my hon. friend must see.


Lucien Cannon: That is exactly the point I am making. By giving, under our electoral law, the right to vote to an Indian, although the Indian Act expressly says that an Indian, ordinarily resident on a reserve, being a ward of the Government, has no right to vote,-


Hugh Guthrie: The Indian Act does not say that. That is where my hon. friend is mistaken.


Mr. TRAHAN:: The law says so.


Hugh Guthrie: No, there is a misapprehension.


Mr. ROSS:: Has not the Franchise Act always said that?
Mr. 'GUTHRIE: The franchise is not something that is born with us; it is something that is conferred. Heretofore we have not conferred it on the Indians; now we are conferring it on certain Indians,

hut there is no disqualification as regards the franchise in the Indian Act. The enfranchised Indian in the Indian Act,-I learned this only last night-is an Indian who has been given his liberty, not the vote. That is the sense in which the word is Used in the Indian Act.


Lucien Cannon: The Acting Solicitor General is perfectly right-, but we are not discussing the same thing.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps that is so.


Lucien Cannon: My point is this, that according to the existing law in Canada, an Indian, ordinarily living on an Indian Reserve, being a ward of the Government, has no right to vote at an election.


Hugh Guthrie: That is right.


Lucien Cannon: We shall soon understand one another. The Acting Solicitor General says that that is the law. Therefore, an Indian living on an Indian Reserve, being a ward of the Government, who was a member o-f the Canadian army or the Imperial army, or an Allied army, has no vote according to the franchise law. (So, I say that the Naturalization Act says that unless a man is a naturalized or a born British subject, he has no right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing in the Naturalization Act about voting.


Lucien Cannon: I say that in the Naturalization Act a British subject is a man who is a British subject either by birth or by naturalization, and the Franchise Act says that only British subjects will have a right to vote under certain conditions. Why not put into our Franchise Act a clause covering a class of people who have lived in Canada for a certain number of years, who have, been peaceable, dutiful citizens of this country for, say twenty or twenty-five years, but who are not British subjects on account of circumstances that I have explained and that other hon. members have explained to the committee (better than myself? It is just as easy for this committee to insert this special clause as it was for the committee to adopt that special clause in connection with Indians. We shall not interfere with the Naturalization Act which will remain as it is now, but for the -purposes of the franchise, we shall have a special clause covering the case of those people. As regards clause 29, if the Acting Solicitor General wishes to give to this House a token of his fair-mindedness, which we all appreciate, he ought

to move first that >subclause 2 be struck out altogether, and second, that there be substituted for subclause 2 a clause covering the case of the people "whom I have just mentioned. He ought to move first that subsection 2 be struck out, and secondly, that in itis place there be inserted a paragraph covering the case of the people I have just mentioned.


Mr. STEVENS:: My hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) has made a very elaborate argument upon entirely false premises. Speaking broadly, my hon. friend based his argument upon this principle, that the fact of being a Bi-itish subject absolutely entitles one to the franchise.


Lucien Cannon: A British subject is entitled to the franchise if he has the necessary qualifications as to age and residence. That is the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The correction does not alter the point I am going to make. In support of his contention he proceeded to argue that the principle was based upon hundreds of years of practice under the British constitution, and he cited the revolutions at the time of King Charles and at other periods of British history, when certain vital principles respecting taxation and other matters were contended for by the people. Upon the principles which, as he alleged, were then at stake he bases his argument to-day for the enfranchisement of the particular class he refers to. He forgets, however, that the franchise as we have it to-day is a comparatively modern institution. Universal franchise was certainly unknown and most certainly was not accepted or practised at the time he refers to, when these great principles -were fought out. The universal franchise comes within the memory of most members of this House. It is a comparatively new proposition. Furthermore, if my hon. friend wishes to base his argument oh constitutional procedure he should remember that the franchise has been extended from time to time by Act of Parliament. The franchise is a gift; it is something that is granted to the subject. I would also point out that while the fact of being a British subject certainly entitles an individual to the protection of the laws of a country it does not necessarily follow that it entitles him to vote. I carry my hon. friend a step further, and he will correct me if I quote him wrongly. He suggests that we should incorporate in this Bill a clause that if a person has been resident in this country ten or fifteen years, whether he is a British subject under the
Naturalization Act or not, he should be entitled to vote. That is an extraordinary doctrine, and I know of no precedent for it in British constitutional history.


Lucien Cannon: I made two different propositions. First, as regards the wives and children. I said that as British subjects they should be given the franchise. Secondly, as regards the men who have lived here in Canada for quite a number of years, but who for certain reasons are not British subjects, I said there should be a clause to cover these special cases, giving them the right to vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can this House imagine a more extraordinary proposal than that an individual, simply because he has been resident in the country and obeying the laws of the country for a certain length of time, should be entitled to the vote, although he is not a natural-born or naturalized British subject? I have never heard of such a doctrine, and certainly no democratic or autocratic country either on the face of the globe ever heard such a proposal made , seriously in its legislative assembly.
Let us look at this particular class. I think my hon. friend has beclouded the issue entirely. The point we are discussing is whether or not we shall extend the franchise to the wives of men who came to us from foreign countries, the men having been resident in Canada. Under the old laws of citizenship a woman from Austria, for instance, could come here and if on the day she landed, she got married to a British subject, by law she became a British subject that very day. I am taking an extreme case perhaps, but it is only by taking such a case that we can appreciate the point my hon. friend is trying to make. His proposal is that women, when naturalized by law, should at once be entitled to vote. I submit that that would be a preposterous proposition. Let us take a case that is not so extreme or so specific. By the progress of events and by recent legislation the franchise has been generally extended to women in this country. That is looked upon as the most progressive step in enfranchisement that we have taken in the past five years. Now what are we doing here? We are simply saying that the women aliens who came to our country and who married British subjects should show that they have the qualifications which their husbands must have in order to be naturalized. It seems to me that is a common sense proposition. More than that, if we

were not to exercise some care in extending the franchise, I believe we would be derelict in our duty to the country at large. We must be very careful to see that the ' franchise is exercised only by those who have an intelligent understanding of the affairs of the country. I think in the past we have been altogether too careless in naturalizing people. We- have naturalized persons who did not understand either of the two languages spoken in this country, and who had no knowledge of our democratic principles and institutions. They came perhaps from countries where they had never at any time exercised the franchise, and consequently did not appreciate the privilege that was given to them. I contend that before any person secures the franchise they should have an intelligent grasp of what the franchise means.


Lucien Cannon: A negress comes to Canada with an American husband. The American husband is naturalized, and she is therefore entitled to vote. A French woman from Paris, highly educated, comes over with her husband. The husband is naturalized a British subject. This woman has no vote, while the negress has. Does my hon. friend think that fair?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may possibly be that there are some anomalies in the working of the law, but I would point out that the whole principle of the Franchise Bill is to extend the franchise. By this Bill we are not taking away from anybody anything they now have, but are simply extending the franchise to some. We are extending a means by which these people can exercise the franchise if they comply with certain conditions. My hon. friend (Mr.	Cannon) said that the
Bill as it stands is not generous enough. My hon. friend- the Acting Solicitor General has agreed to an enlargement by the amendment which he proposes, and I think that in that regard he has done well. I for one would not advocate that we should enter into any reactionary policy in connection with the franchise. I think we must be broad and generous in the construction of our franchise law. Nevertheless, Sir, I believe that it is the duty of this Parliament to safeguard the Tights conferred by the franchise so that this greatest privilege of citizenship may be exercised wisely and intelligently. I wish to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) that he is not quite consistent, because, if I mistake not, there is in some of the provinces of Canada to-day a property qualifica-

tion for voters. In other words, the principle which he enunciates, namely, that the fact of your being a British subject entitles you to vote provided you are twenty-one years of age and can comply with certain other requirements, is not applicable generally throughout the country. In provincial matters, there are property qualifications in some of the provinces. I think that Nova Scotia a few years ago, if not to-day, had such qualifications, and it is not many years ago since the other provinces had them. Generally speaking, we have passed that stage in the Dominion arena; we have virtually reached the point of universal franchise, although there are some classes that are still restricted, and I think Mr. Chairman that we are exceedingly wise in imposing the restrictions that exist. And I am reminded-I intended to state the fact-that these restrictions are imposed upon persons who are undoubtedly British subjects in every sense of the term. We enforce in a very marked sense the resident qualification. A man must have been for a certain time resident in the electoral district in which he votes. He might have been born in this country and have lived here all his life; he might have been prime minister of a province for a dozen years; but if he has not been a resident in the electoral district for a stated period he cannot vote. We look upon that as a necessary qualification, and this and other restrictions are eminently wise, notwithstanding that they apply to British subjects bom or naturalized. The point I am driving at is simply this, that you cannot lay down the principle that because a person is a British subject either by birth or by naturalization he therefore necessarily is entitled to the franchise. The franchise is a right that exists altogether independently of the naturalization law, and in this Act we are not violating that law at all. We are dealing with a separate matter which is of the greatest importance in itself, and so long as this Act deals fairly with the people of the country and gives them a reasonable opportunity to exercise the franchise it discharges the function which is supposed to attach to it.
I desire to say a word or two in regard to the disfranchisement of certain classes of people. Now, Sir, I feel very strongly with the hon. member for Red Deer and one or two other hon. gentlemen whom I have heard speak on this question, that we should as early as possible in Canada allay the bitterness that has been engendered

by the late war and endeavour to establish a new relation with our enemies. That is desirable, and I should be the last person to say anything now that might tend to open old wounds. But, Mr. Chairman, while we entertain that feeling-and I think it is genuinely entertained throughout the country-nevertheless there are certain things which common sense demands that we shall recognize. Although perhaps a large proportion of the people disfranchised by reason of enemy alien origin may wish to be good and loyal citizens of this country, still we have had ample experience to know that there are designing persons who even to-day, after all the bitter lessons of the war, are quite willing to use their influence among this class of people to the detriment of the country. We cannot shut our eyes to that fact; I do not think we dare. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I would be the last man to stir up any rancour or ill feeling, but the fact must be apparent that-
Mr. (HI. A. MACKIE:	Would the hon.
gentleman mind naming the agitators who are creating tne disturbances or who .are bringing any influence to bear on people in this country?	,


Henry Herbert Stevens: -it is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking in a general sense, and I think my hon. friend knows that perfectly well. But it would be entirely beside the question for me to mention any names at this time.


Mr. EULER:: Does the hon. gentleman
not know that in such cases as he has referred to it would be the duty of the judge to examine the persons who appeared before him and to decide whether they were woithy of naturalization, and that if he found that they were not worthy he would be in duty bound to refuse the credentials?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume the hon. gentleman is referring to this clause under discussion?


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, let me say that I am supporting the clause and I agree with my hon. friend so far as this clause is concerned. But what I do say-I think it is well that I should repeat it, and I can assure hon. gentlemen that I have no desire whatever to stir up troubl.e-is that it is unwise for us to close our eyes to the fact that there are individuals in Canada to-day who are quite willing to . exploit the bitter feelings that arose during
the late war in order to create discord and trouble in the country. The same thing has been experienced to the south of us, perhaps to a greater extent than in Canada. So that in the framing of this Franchise Bill, Parliament must take care that it shall not carelessly or recklessly extend the privilege of the franchise. One other point, Mr. Chairman, and I shall conclude. As years go by these disabilities which we have, as I think, very wisely imposed may be removed as present unsettled conditions subside and become normal once more, but I do not think that it is wise at this time to go to any extreme that may involve us in danger.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I do not purpose to discuss the question of the disfranchisement of certain British subjects, because I am well satisfied with what the minister said last night, if I understood him correctly. He said:
The object of the present amendment is to make definite and certain that every one who is actually a British subject shall enjoy the right to vote, and if the amendment that I have moved does not make that clear, we shall make it clear if a better method can be suggested.
I assume that the minister was referring to cases of the kind under discussion: that is, the wives and families of naturalized British subjects from alien countries. I think I can quite' agree with him in that, if he is prepared to change his amendment in such a way as to carry out what he says he has in mind.
In one or two respects the amendment as drawn will not, in my opinion, accomplish what I assume the minister desires to accomplish ; and I assume he desires to accomplish what he says he desires. The wives and children of naturalized Germans and Austrians in our country are, in cases where the husband or father is naturalized, British subjects. I assume that my hon. friend's desire is to give all these people the right to vote; if he does not mean that, his statement of last night will require a good deal of explanation. Anything I have to say in this discussion will be with a view to directing the minister's attention to some things which I believe would prevent him from carrying out his desires as expressed last night. In the first place, the applicant for certificate must show that he or she is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of the English or French language. That is not the most important matter on which I wish to speak, but let me dwell upon it for a moment. I think I

am right in saying that the section as proposed to be amended by the minister *will mean that every person applying to a judge for a certificate such as is required under the section must satisfy 'that judge that he or she has a good knowledge of English or French and is of good character. Now the ghod character requirement we can hardly object to. In a great many cases, however, wives of naturalized British subjects will be debarred on the language test. Is that the minister's intention? The amendment means that any barrier placed upon a person by reason of section 8 of the Naturalization Act shall not disentitle him or her to receive that certificate from the judge. Has it occurred to the minister that in order to carry out the spirit of the Act the judge must in many cases give an absolutely false certificate? He must certify that the person is a person naturalized by operation of law, who, but for such naturalization "is qualified and would be entitled at the issue of this certificate to be personally naturalized in Canada." Now, the wife or child of a naturalized German or Austrian would not be qualified under these circumstances and would not be so entitled to naturalization. While the spirit of the amendment proposed would, perhaps, justify the judge in granting that quasi false certificate, I am satisfied that I know a judge who will hot grant it under the circumstances; he will not give the certificate to the wife ot the child of a German or an Austrian. I would not blame him for that, because we have no right to ask a judge to issue what is evidently a false certificate, even though it may be in keeping with the spirit of the. law. What are you going to do with the judge who, on that ground, refuses to issue the certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: That brings us to the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Euler). My view is, and I am pretty strong in it, that the certificate is right in the form in which it appears in the Bill. The member for North Waterloo does not take that iew; he doubts whether that is correct. Mr. Mulvey, the Under-Secretary of State, who has the administration of the Naturalization Act, is also inclined to think that there may be some doubt, and if a judge in the West has cast a doubt upon it, there is all the more reason why it should be made clear. Mr. Mulvey suggests that it can be made clear by inserting two or three words in the certificate, and when
{Mr. Thomson.]
we come to it I propose to move an amendment.


Levi Thomson: I would like the minister to note the objection that I have taken; I do not know whether it is the same as that made by the hon. member for North Waterloo.
There is another point. Those who have had to do with naturalization know that the foreigner, as we call him, is not likely to apply for naturalization until he has some particular object in view, until there is some particular reason for his doing so. My experience is not exactly in line with what the member for Regina (Mr. Cowman) says' was his experience and that of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder). I know that in the old days a great many of these people used to apply for naturalization before an election. In fact, that was about the only time they wanted it, unless it was when they wanted their patents. Now, what will be the result of that practice under present conditions? Large numbers of these 'people will not bother about this certificate until they are pretty sure an election is coming on, and in some of our western districts the judges will have their hands full if they properly carry out the idea which, I take it, the minister has in mind. I assume that the minister will expect the judge to require those who go before him for this purpose to establish that they are able to read and write the English or the French languages and also that they are of good character. How is the judge to satisfy himself 'on the point of character? I do not know what the rule followed by all the judges in the West is, but in the Moosomin district a judge, when he wants to satisfy himself as to the character of an applicant, must have before him two persons who know the applicant and whom the judge also knows. He will pay no attention to any person coming to swear as to the character of the applicant unless it is some one whom he himself knows. These applications must be made only before him in chambers at Moosomin. Now the judicial district of Moosomin is one of the oldest and most densely populated districts of Saskatchewan, and many of these people live seventy-five or eighty miles from the town of Moosomin itself. The requirement seems to be that such persons must go to Moosomin with two witnesses who must know the applicants, and must be known to the judge. With these special persons to vouch for them the applicants must go all that

distance, in each case we will say, to Moosomin. Now there are a great many of such people that will require those certificates and the time of the judge will be pretty well occupied in hearing these applications. I would like the minister-sometime later, when he is on his feet-to relieve my mind as to whether there would be any limitation on the right of the judge to make a ruling as to the evidence that must be submitted before him, as to the persons by whom it shall be submitted, and also as to where the hearings can take place. It seems to me that there can be no proper reason why the judge should not be able to hear those applications at any place where he holds a district court. Even that would not be very satisfactory, for the reason that in most of the places. outside of the judicial centra court is only held twice a year; and when an election is in view, at the time these people would be coming forward with their applications, there is no district court being held at that particular place and the parties desirous of making the application would either have to go to Moosomin or abandon their purpose altogether. If the section is passed, with the amendment suggested, a very large proportion of these people will be British subjects by operation of law- that is the wives and children of naturalized persons who were former Germans or Austrians-but only a very small number of them would be qualified to vote when an election takes place.
I would also make one further suggestion to my hon. friend who states that he is willing to receive suggestions-whether it is advisable or not I leave to himself-if he insists on some such certificate being granted, would it not be possible to have some persons appointed for this purpose in each important town or village throughout the district? For instance, take my own district, if half a dozen or a dozen men at the most important points were given the right to issue those certificates I would be quite willing to allow' my hon. friend to appoint those men himself, because, in my opinion, he will choose men that are honest and thoroughly reliable. Let such persons as those issue the certificates. They know far more about the character of the applicants than the judge possibly could. After all that is the important point, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me as to that-such persons will be in a very much better position to give a certificate than any judge would. Therefore I would like my hon. friend to consider that suggestion.


William Daum Euler: It has been stated this afternoon by the Acting Solicitor General-and reference to it has been made by the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon)-that this amendment has come as a result of certain representations I made some time ago, and the minister intimated that the amendment was in some sense to meet my wishes. That may be true. So far as I am concerned I feel that the amendment which has been submitted, and which we are now discussing does, in a measure, meet the views that were placed before the House at that time. But I was rather surprised to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cannon) state that it has absolutely no effect in the direction desired. If that were the case I would say, either that the w'ork of the man who drafted the amendment is very bad, or that the amendment is an attempt at the w'orst betrayal of which any Government could possibly be guilty. I would hesitate to believe either of these conclusions; I do not view the amendment in that way.
I do not want to be placed in the position of opposing the amendment because I am in favour of it so far as it goes; my only objection to it is that it does not go quite far enough. It must be apparent to every member who has followed the course of this debate that a great deal of confusion exists as to exactly what the clause and the amendment mean. I am pretty sure that at least ninety per cent of the members of the House do not yet appreciate the distinction-and this is casting no reflection on any hon. member-that should be made between those people that are not naturalized and who we think should be allowed the franchise by naturalization, and that other group of people who were discussed on the second reading of the Bill, and whose grievance this amendment is supposed to remedy. I am not now going to discuss the status of those who are not British subjects. I shall do what I did the other night -refer to the rights of those women and men who are actually naturalized British subjects, and who, in my opinion, should be given the vote without being put to the necessity of going before a judge and once again proving that they are entitled to, and are fit persons to exercise the franchise. Now if the whole question has i.een so confusing to the members of the House, it is not to be wondered at if the same condition exists throughout the country, and it will certainly exist in the minds of the people who are most intimately affected by the condition in question. But I submit, Sir, that it is entirely unnecessary that

any such confusion should exist. This amendment is not the best that could be offered. The existing contusion will vanish if we simply follow the law as we have it already in the Naturalization Act, entirely apart from this clause and which a much simpler amendment will accomplish. The whole difficulty, to my mind, arises from the fact that an attempt is here being made to enact a law which is in direct contradiction to the law which already appears on the statute books of Canada. When the Government realized the unfortunate effects of the proposed new law, they undertook to remedy the defect-not by removing the clause which is in direct opposition to an established principle of law already on the statute books of Canada, but by trying to reconcile two irreconcilable things, and thus they complicated and confused the whole question more than ever. I believe, Sir, that is stating the absolute fact. The whole difficulty arises by trying to enact a law which will be in direot contradiction to a law which already exists, and nothing but confusion can result from such an attempt.
First, we have the principle laid down in the Naturalization Act, that the wife of a British subject is herself a British subject. We may regard that, I think, as a definite axiom. It is not only enacted in the naturalization law of 1919, but it has been affirmed in every previous naturalization law since Confederation. Therefore I say it is an accepted axiom that the wife of a British subject is herself a British subject.
Then, quite inconsistently, hi subsection 2 of section 29 we say in plain English that in so far as voting is concerned she is not a British subject. That is the extraordinary statement in that paragraph. In our naturalization law we say that the wife of *a British subject is a British subject; but in this proposed election law we say in so many words that she is not a British subject. The two terms are absolutely contradictory, and that is why the confusion arises.
Now, when the difficulty is noted, along comes this amendment which tries to reconcile what I submit are two unreconcilable things. How can a person be a British subject and yet not be a British subject?
In my opinion, Sir, the remedy is very ' plain. Choose which of the two principles -the one already in the Naturalization Act under which the wife of a British subject is herself a British subject; and the other principle enunciated in this Franchise Act, that she is not a British sub-

ject for the purpose of voting-I say choose which of these two principles is the right one, and then destroy the one that is wrong. That seems to me to be the logical course to follow.
These women and these men who, as minors, became naturalized by operation of law are British subjects, as has been pointed out again and again, and I assert that it is absurd to say that right here in Canada-where after all this Parliament should have full control-those men and women shall be British subjects for one purpose and not for another; that for example, the men shall be put in the dual characters of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: The whole thing is an absurdity and should not be placed upon the statute books.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma East):: Might I ask the hon. member a question? How would he treat British subjects who come to this country from British India?


William Daum Euler: That is a very easy question for me to answer. I would say that a person who is a British subject in Canada should be given the vote, regardless of colour, creed or racial origin. That is my personal opinion.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, these women are British subjects and their husbands are British subjects. I declare, and I know something of what I am about to say, that these husbands are probably no better and no worse than their wives so far as fitness for the franchise is concerned. These men, and quite properly so, are now permitted to cast their ballots, though of alien origin. Then the franchise having been extended to our 'Women, and quite properly so, why should it not follow that as these men are granted the franchise, their wives-who are just as much British subjects as their husbands-should also be granted the franchise? Why should they be put under the necessity and the humiliation of going before a judge and showing once again that they are fit and proper persons to be given the franchise?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. member permit me a question? He speaks of the wives going before a judge and showing once again that they are fit and proper persons to exercise the franchise. Is it not true that they have never before shown that fitness, nor have they ever established that they have the qualifications which their husbands had to have in order to be granted naturalization? And while I am on my feet, let me ask another question. Before the husbands could secure 'the fran-

chise they had to comply with the Naturalization Act; the women never were naturalized under that Act, but by law, which law was 'based upon certain principles before women were enfranchised. Now that women are enfranchised, is it not fair that these wives should be asked to qualify up to the standard of their husbands?


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman tries to introduce a principle that has never been introduced before. The franchise has now been given to all women who are British subjects, except this particular class of whom we are speaking. There has been no intimation given that the Government is going to make certain that
5 p.m. other' women are to be tested before a judge as to whether they are fit and proper persons to exercise the franchise. If we are going to be consistent, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to make these people who have lived in the country for many years, to say nothing of the men who have voted in past years, and whom you are now going to make go before a judge to show their fitness to exercise the franchise-if we are going to do that, we should make certain that everybody who in future casts his ballot is a fit and proper person to be granted that privilege. Why not go back and make every woman who will now vote show that she is a fit and proper person to cast the ballot? Why confine it to the alien-born if the present law as to naturalization is to be satisfied? It seems to me that that is the only logical course to take if you want to be consistent. I contend that to-day there are men in this country-and many women too, who could not possibly fulfil the requirements of the Naturalization Act, as it is at this moment. Are we going to shut them out from the vote? We are not, and I think it is quite Tight that that we do not, because it would be a mistake to make that provision retroactive in respect to a privilege which they already have. The alien-born British subject should not be discriminated against.
I contended last evening that this law should not be made to apply to people who are already living in this country and are British subjects, but that, if desired, we might apply this law to those who come here in the future. They come then with their eyes open, knowing what is expected of them. I for one iam quite in sympathy with the principle that in future, men and women alike, should be made to show that they are fit subjects for naturalization, and thus for the franchise.
Peculiarly enough, I have not heard any real defence of this subsection 2 of section 29 or any real reason given for its adoption. No real argument has been adduced as to why these women in particular should be segregated from their husbands, than whom they are no better and no worse-perhaps the wives are a little better; I am willing to admit that. Then why should they be put to the necessity of going before a judge and proving that they are fit persons to vote? I have heard no argument that convinces me of the necessity for this provision; in fact, all hon. members on the other side who have spoken, have practically avoided that point.
I was alluding a few moments ago to the fact that a great deal of confusion exists, and I listened with approval to what was said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson). He stated that in his opinion the inclusion of this paragraph in the Bill will result, in a practical way, in the disfranchisement of a great proportion of these people. In that I think he is absolutely correct. I gave some of the reasons for my belief last night. In the first place, many of these women, especially those who are aged-and many of them are elderly women-will absolutely refuse to go through the ordeal of appearing before a judge and submitting themselves to a series of questions. Thqy will prefer to remain at home and lose their vote. It may be said that that is not the proper attitude on their part; but it is a very natural one. On the other hand, I think a great many of these people, particularly the men, may be placed upon the voters' lists by those who think they ought to be there legally, and perhaps placed there by others who think that they have a moral right to be there- a great many of these people, knowing that their names are on the voters' lists, will go to no further trouble to get the certificate required by law, and when they appear at the polling booth they may be challenged by those opposed to them politically with the result that they will be deprived of their votes. I believe that will be the practical result of the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. All the confusion, all the injustice and all danger from a wrong interpretation of the Act; all danger that a judge even may make a partisan use of his power, and refuse the certificate to perfectly worthy people, British subjects, will disappear, if you will take the law as it stands to-day in the Naturalization Act and say that when a person is a British subject, he is -a British

subject for all purposes, including the franchise, if he fulfils the other requirements. As I said last night, I believe earnestly if a man or a woman is of the age of twenty-one years and is of good character, he or she should have the franchise as the direct result of British citizenship, and this clause which imposes on those people the necessity of going before a judge and proving to his satisfaction- and perhaps failing to prove to his satisfaction-that they are fit and proper persons to exercise the franchise, should be struck out.
Surely this should appeal to the Government as the only logical, fair and reasonable way in which to cure the wrong that flowed out of the Act as it was originally framed. I should like to press home on the Acting Solicitor General and the Government that by so doing they will be the means of saving many worthy people from difficulties and inconveniences which they do not deserve to have placed upon them. Believing that, I shall move an amendment to the amendment of the Acting Solicitor General and I hope he will accept it and withdraw his own, because I believe my amendment will meet the sense of fairness of most of the people of this country when they know the facts free from misrepresentation. I move in amendment to the amendment:
That subclause 2 of clause 29 of the Bill be struck out in its entirety.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton):: The
legal effect of the Franchise Bill as now proposed has been given very well this afternoon by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and other hon. gentlemen, but I believe they have exaggerated to a certain degree the evils which may crop up under this measure. The amendment to the amendment undoubtedly meets the situation which both the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) and myself had the honour of suggesting to the House on the second reading, and if hon. gentlemen opposite will take the trouble to study the amendment to the amendment carefully, they will see that it meets that situation. I said on that occasion that the Government can have only one purpose for that clause, namely, that it desires to raise the standard of the voter. My hon. friend (Mr. Euler) has, I believe, struck the proper key-note this afternoon along with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson), when they say that, whereas you are endeavouring to raise that standard by this legislation, you are making
fMr. Euler.]
it possible, first, that persons applying for a certificate will be denied that certificate by reason of the prejudice unfortunately existing at present in the country, and second, that those who will be denied a certificate because they do not come up to the qualifications required of them under the Naturalization Act, shall be deprived of casting a vote in the elections in this country when, as a matter of fact, there are, in Western Canada as well as in Eastern Canada, very many persons who have to ask their friends in the polling booth how to mark their ballots. I am entirely in accord with the motive of the Government, and I do not believe the accusations of hon. gentlemen, opposite against the Government are well founded. I am entirely in accord with the desire of the Government to establish a higher standard of education in the matter of voting, but I believe this is not the proper occasion on which to deal with that matter. I would rather see a law which would contain a provision stating that hereafter unless you can speak or write the English or the French language, or unless you have an adequate knowledge of one or the other or both languages, you may not vote. Then, we would have the whole population on an equal footing. I know, for instance, that in the western provinces there are a large number of men and women who will not be able to get their certificates, not because of their fault, but because of the circumstances in which they are situated and of their age, it will be impossible for them to qualify unless a judge is willing to take the broad view that he used to take at a time when such men came before him for naturalization papers for the purpose of securing patents to land. Under those circumstances, a judge was lenient, because he realized that it was necessary for a man to get his naturalization papers for the purpose of getting patent to his land. If such a man could say a few words in English or French and could express the balance of his meaning by gesticulation with his hands or by some otiher method, the judge would say: All right, I will give you your naturalization papers. But when such a man comes before a judge to obtain qualification to vote the judge may not be so lenient, and I know of some judges who have refused -such people naturalization right along. Even now I have received letters from some of my constituents stating that they have made application and that they have been turned down because they do not know enough' of the English lan-

guage. This is one method of disfranchising those people, and they should not be treated in this way, unless you go further and treat every one in the same manner. What about the half-breed population we have in Western Canada? I attended one poll at Fort Chippewyan where there were 90 voters, not one of whom himself marked his ballot, but whose ballot was marked for him by the deputy returning officer when they told him for whom they wanted to vote. I doubt if they understood the issues in the" provincial election; but they were entitled to vote, althought in the light of this provision in this Franchise Bill, they would not be permitted to vote.
Another feature which I should like to discuss for a moment is this. In Western Canada, there is a large population from Galicia. One portion of Galicia has to-day passed under the dominance of Poland; the other portion has been separated from Austria, but it does not belong to any country in particular, except that Poland has been given a sort of mandate temporarily until the League of Nations decides the issue whether eastern Galicia shall go into independent Ukraine or whether it shall form part of Russia as a whole. These people in the meantime are being looked upon as alien enemies, as Austrians, although they are detached from the Austrian Empire, and all of those people, by reason of the fact that the League of Nations has not yet determined what country they are in future to be nationals of have been refused naturalization papers. I have a number of letters from the Under-Secretary of State stating definitely that these people would be refused their naturalization papers until such time as the League of Nations shall decide where they belong. Assuming that this Government will finish the terms and that two more years will elapse before an election takes place, if the League of Nations shall have settled by that time the destiny of these people, they will then be entitled to make application for naturalization. If not, there will be out West a very large number of people who will not be able to vote at all, because they cannot be naturalized in Canada for the purpose of acquiring citizenship, and certainly they cannot be naturalized for the purpose of voting.
I would point out the advisability of supporting the amendment to the amendment and treating these people on the broad lines we have been accustomed to in the past in dealing with all the people of this Dominion. If there is to be any high standard of citizenship required before a vote can
be cast let the Act state, that from now on certain classes shall not be allowed to help to determine public questions in Canada unless they have a certain educational status. I would support such a proposal if it were made to apply to all alike. But at the present time I should think that we are discriminating, because we are allowing a large number of people to vote who have no greater learning or education than those from foreign countries who have been brought to the western provinces. Let a standard be fixed from now on; let there be no discrimination. I would also ask the Acting Solicitor General to take into consideration the fact that in the three western provinces that large population from Galicia will not be able to secure the franchise unless the League of Nations decides within the next two years what shall happen to them.


Mr. JACOBS:: I feel as if I were playing a return engagement here this afternoon, because I was the last to speak on this question last night. But I cannot allow the question to be put to a vote without saying a final word in the hope that the Acting Solicitor General may have had his heart softened in the meantime. This matter is of vital importance to the people in the large cities, where, we have, as the House knows, an exceptionally lafge foreign population. I said last night that I estimated there were at least 5,000 of these foreign born people in my division who would be affected by this Bill. In the other divisions of Montreal there are at least as many, so that in the city of Montreal we have 10,000 foreign born who will be affected by this legislation. Last night when I asked the Acting Solicitor General why he sought to introduce this distinction into our law, he said:
Because we recognize that people born on this continent are very similar in their ideas, laws, customs and habits to our own people and we can very quickly assimilate them to our ways.
That being the case you would expect that a judge who was going to pass on the applications brought before him would look into the question whether the applicant's ideas, laws, customs and habits were similar to ours or otherwise. Let me invite your attention to the form provided in section 29:
This is to certify that from evidence submitted before me 1 am satisfied that A. B. of	in the province of...(occupation)	is a person naturalized as a
British subject by operation of law, who, but for such naturalization, is qualified and would

be entitled at the date of the issue of this certificate to he personally naturalized in Canada.
Is there anything said there with regard to the ideas, laws, customs, habits and character of the applicant? Not a word. The object of this certificate, as can be seen from the form, is identification pure and simple, and I challenge the Acting Solicitor General to show me where it applies to anything outside of identification. Why should the judges of the high court in the city of Montreal, for instance, be put to the trouble and inconvenience and annoyance of merely passing upon a question of identification when that could be [DOT]very well done by the enumerator 'or by the deputy returning officer?
I say that the object of this section is to prevent as many as possible of the foreign born from voting at the next election. That is the object, camouflage it as you may, and I challenge the Acting Solicitor General to say that it is for any other object. He spoke of the ideas, law, customs and habits of our people, and contrasted them with those of the people coming here from Europe. Does the Acting Solicitor General know that under this Act people from Mexico, from Haiti, and from the Central American republics will have the right to vote? Every negress, every mulatto, and evfiry quadroon in the United States who comes here and marries a British subject will have the right to vote. In what way I should like to know will that contribute to elevating our ideas, our customs, and character, and habits, and the mental and moral welfare of the people of this country? The women from Belgium and France, many of whom took part in'the war, are not to be allowed this privilege but have to submit to this humiliating application which the minister intends to thrust upon them. I admire consistency and frankness in any one, as much in a government as in a private individual, and I say it is rank hypocrisy on the part of the Government to attempt to tell us that tlie object of this law is to see to it that the people who are voting under this law conform to the customs and ideas of the native born.
I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that when the Military Voters' Act was put on the statute books there was no such wild attempt to see to it that the ideas, the customs and habits and morality of the women who voted under that Act should be as carefully investigated as they are supposed to be under this Act. Women

voters under that Act were taken wherever they could be found. If a man in the trenches had nine or ten sisters at home, he had eleven votes, no matter whether the women were from Belgium or France or Timbuctoo. The Government needed those votes, and they made use of them. Today they think they do not need them. In fact in a very negative way, they do not need them because the Government knows how the women are going to vote so they bring before Parliament a measure to see that as few as possible will vote at the next election. This giving the vote to the women and then taking it away from them is very much in line with a good many other so-called philanthropic acts of the Government, but when you examine it you find you have very little. It is another case of, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but in this case we cannot say, Blessed be the name of the Lord. I would like to have the Acting Solicitor General pinned down to a statement regarding the form attached to section 29, and to ascertain from him how a judge by giving a certificate identifying a party as the party entitled to vote is going to give us any assurance as to the character of the voter. The thing is absurd. It is simply another piece of hypocrisy on the part of the Government, who under the guise of seeing to it that the people who come to this country are respectable and law-abiding citizens are depriving many of their right to exercise the franchise which they would have, but for this section.
I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this matter. When the By-elections Bill was before the House in July, 1919, I opposed it as vigorously as I couid. When the Naturalization Act was before the House I opposed it, I opposed this Bill on its second reading and I intend to oppose it at every turn until it finally becomes law and as I hinted last night I intend to oppose it even then. The Government, I fear, in its own interests is making a mistake in attempting to place on the statute books laws of this kind. After all, what reason have they to feel that all these women whom it is sought to prevent from voting at the next election are going to vote against them? The Government claim that at the last election about 250,000 or 300,000 women voted for them. How is it that such a change has come about in the mentality of the women of this country? It is said that women sometimes, by intuition know who are their friends and who are not; and probably the Government

has come to the conclusion that the women are going to vote against them en masse on that account. In this Bill there is a distinction which ought not to exist. We do not want to have one law for the stranger and another law for the British born subject. The law that exists in the land should be the law for all persons who live in the land, and any attempt to derogate or deviate from that well established principle is bound to meet with the reprobation of the citizens of this country. The Government may think that they are going to succeed by putting on the statute book a law of this kind, but I warn them that it will recoil upon their heads. There are a large number of foreign born people who will be permitted to vote under this Act, but their relatives will be precluded from the privilege, and I want to warn the Government seriously, that many of these people whose relatives are to be prohibited from voting at the next election are certainly not going to cast their votes in favour of a Government that puts on the statute book of the country a measure as iniquitous as this one.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Will the minister be
kind enough to tell me what good reason there is and what good purpose will be served by compelling these British subjects to travel miles from their homes to obtain certificates? I represent in this House a purely rural constituency in which there is not a judicial centre, and the women who will be affected in that constituency will have to travel many miles at great expense, and will be absent from their families for one or more nights if they desire to obtain the necessary certificate. The law says that these people are British subjects. It gives to their husbands, who are British subjects, the right of the franchise, and I cannot see any good reason why these women should be compelled to apply to a judge or any tribunal for a certificate. Will the minister be kind enough to make a statement in regard to that point?


Mr. MYERS:: Will the hon. gentleman say who he thinks will grant the certificate if not the judge?


John Frederick Johnston: I have asked the minister a question and I should like to have an answer.


Hugh Guthrie: The question asked by the hon. member is practically the same as one submitted by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-peile. Under this Bill as drawn it is provided that a person who has become a British subject by operation of law, in order to 134
vote, shall obtain a certificate from a judge. That certificate is not for the purpose of identity, as my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier suggested a few moments ago; it is for the purpose of satisfying the judge that the woman has such qualifications that in any event, though she niay be a British subject by operation of law, she would be entitled to naturalization. I do not know the riding which my hon. friend represents, but I know that under this Act it is not only one circuit judge that can give a certificate. Any of the Superior Court judges can give it, and I assume that courts are held at regular intervals in these outlying districts. In the dense settlement of Montreal, according to my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs), some ten thousand women will have to procure certificates, but I am satisfied even that large number can be accommodated for there are some thirty or forty judges in Montreal who will have the power to grant these certificates. One can easily magnify the difficulties under this Act, and no doubt there will be some inconvenience imposed. It has been pointed out that some judges may take exceptional views of the matter. Well, we are supposed to have judges who will take reasonable views of the law and administer the law as it stands; and I think that if there are judges who will not do so their conduct should be reported to the proper authorities. I cannot understand that any judge would say: "I will hear applications only at one point in my district." There is nothing in the Act that limits his jurisdiction in any way; there is nothing that imposes such a limitation upon him. I think myself that the judge is bound to hear an application wherever it is made, in any part of the territory under his jurisdiction, and I see nothing to prevent any judge from any other part of the province from coming in. This can be done in Ontario.


Levi Thomson: Is that true in regard to an application for naturalization? Is the judge bound to hear an application for naturalization from any point?


Hugh Guthrie: The judge is bound by the language of this statute, and there is nothing to say that he will hear applications only in one particular place. He must hear them wherever they are made in the territory over which he has jurisdiction, and there is nothing in this law that says he can name particular places.


Levi Thomson: The minister has not caught my question. I want to know



if the same thing applies to an application for naturalization. Is the judge bound to hear that application at any place; if not, what is the distinction?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think he is hound to hear it at any place. The application has to be filed, in the case of naturalization, in the office of the clerk of the court. In this case the judge has jurisdiction over every portion of his territory, and it is not for him to say that he will hear applications only in this or the other place, and if a judge takes that ground his conduct should be reported to the proper authorities, and I am satisfied he would not continue in such a course or the law would speedily be changed.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: Will any fee be charged for the certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: No, there is no fee for the certificate. I do not know that I can give any further information to the committee. I know that there are two views in regard 'to this amendment as there probably are in regard to the original clause. My hon. friend from Dorchester took forty minutes this afternoon to denounce my amendment and to show that it was, in his opinion, absolutely worthless. Yet my hon. friend from North Waterloo approved of it; he evidently thinks that half a loaf is better than no bread.


William Daum Euler: I thank the minister for expressing the very thought I had in mind. I was just about to say the same thing.


Hugh Guthrie: As I said last night and repeat now, if there is anything uncertain about the amendment which my hon. friend can make clearer by other language I am willing to give every consideration to his suggestions. If the language of the Undersecretary of State meets the views of my hon. friend we may consider it. The amendment I have submitted meets with the approval of the Government, and it is the desire that it be passed.


Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie):: In my riding there is a judicial centre and the resident district judge hold, sittings of the district court throughout that territory. Suppose an application is filed with the court in one part of that territory and the judge is sitting somewhere else, could the party who filed the application appear before the judge where he is sitting and ask for the certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: Undoubtedly.


John Flaws Reid: I understood
my hon. friend (Mr. L. Thomson) to say that a similar request had been refused in his constituency.


Hugh Guthrie: Then the matter had
better be referred to the proper authorities.
It has always been believed that judges of this country hold office for the convenience of the public as well as for the administration of law. If they get the other idea into their heads, the sooner we pass some law on the subject the better.


Ernest Lapointe: Subsection 2 of clause 29 states:
For the purposes of this Act, the allegiance or nationality of a person, as it was at the birth of such person, shall be deemed incapable of being changed ... by reason of .	.	.	.
naturalization of any other person or otherwise than by personal naturalization.
Now, section 33 of the Naturalization Act reads, in part:
Where in pursuance of this Act the name of a child is included in a certificate of naturalization granted to his parent, or where, in pursuance of any Act repealed by this Act, any child has been deemed to be a naturalized British subject by reason of residence with his parent, such child shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted.
Under the Naturalization Act of 1919 a minor child becomes a British subject on account of the naturalization of his father and is deemed to be personally naturalized; is deemed to have received a certificate of naturalization. How do you reconcile the two Acts?


Hugh Guthrie: He gets it by operation
of law. He does not actually get a certificate.


Ernest Lapointe: He is deemed to have
had a certificate.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the operation
of law; that is what is referred to. He gets no actual certificate, but by operation of law he becomes a British subject and is deemed to have received a certificate.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend is not right as to that. The wife becomes a British subject by operation of law. There is no section that says the wife is deemed to have received the certificate. Minor children are placed in the same situation as the wife; they are deemed to be naturalized by the operation of law, but there is a special section which states that they are considered as having been personally naturalized, as having themselves received certificate of naturalization. How can you reconcile these two provisions?


Hugh Guthrie: They never have been
personally naturalized and they never have received a certificate. The law says they shall be deemed to have been personally naturalized; consequently it is by operation of law that they are such.


Ernest Lapointe: That only serves to
show the absurdity of legislation which makes persons half British subjects and half aliens. If personal naturalization is required of a person in order that he may be a British subject, then change the naturalization law. I read in an American magazine some days ago an article which stated that changes in the naturalization law of United States are being advocated to provide that personal naturalization only shall be valid. Change the law if you like, but as long as the naturalization of the husband carries with it the naturalization of the wife, the wife should be deemed a British subject for all purposes, not for some purposes only. People seem to be under the impression that this provision is designed only to meet the case of persons whose parents were of enemy origin. Well, that is a mistake; this provision applies also to persons coming from friendly countries. As was stated this afternoon, persons of French, Italian and Belgian descent, persons from other countries which were associated with Great Britain in the war, even though they are British subjects by the naturalization of husbands or fathers, would, under this provision, be deprived of the right to vote. This is a point of view which should be considered before section 29 is adopted in its present form. We have the disability clause providing for the ten year period of disfranchisement because that provision was first enacted by the British Parliament. The British electoral law never required personal naturalization on the part of women to entitle them to vote. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, women who are British subjects by birth or by naturalization are entitled to vote. Why should we have any different provision in this country? It is arbitrary to ask people to get a certificate from a judge before they shall have the right to vote. The right to vote should be made clear by Act of Parliament; it should not 'be subject to the whim of any person, a judge or any one else. Judges have very-ing rules in connection with the application of laws, especially when it is a question of administration, as will be the case under this Act. Some judges are more strict than others; some insist upon the furnishing of more particulars by applicants than others 134*
do. The law will not be uniform In its application, and for that reason and for all the other reasons that have been given this afternoon, I shall support the amendment of my hon. friend from North Waterloo.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, all these new troubles and difficulties that we have in connection with the franchise arose out of the war. We had no such difficulties before the war. Any man who came to this country obtained his naturalization, and there was no further trouble about it-he was entitled to all the privileges of a British subject. For that reason I cannot see why troubles which have arisen out of the war should be visited upon those nations which were friendly to us and fought side by side with us during the conflict, and why we should, by reason of the disturbing elements of war conditions, place at a disadvantage and disfranchise all these people who were friends and allies in the struggle. That is something I cannot very well understand. I notice, 'Sir, that in subclause (B), of subclause 4 of section eight of the Naturalization Act that we passed last year that when we were to inflict punishment upon a certain class of people we confined that arrangement to our enemies during th- war. The subclause referred to states:
No certificate of naturalization shall, wfore the expiration of a period of ten years after the termination of the present war, be granted in Canada to any subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty, but this provision shall not apply to a person whoand so forth. The idea of subclause (B) is to inflict that punishment and that disability upon subjects of a country who opposed us in the war. What I cannot understand is this: If an Italian came to this country to-day he would not require to be here ten years before he got naturalization; he got it in the ordinary way and perhaps he was never in the country before. But there may be an Italian woman who has been in Canada for perhaps twenty years. Our law ordinarily confers the franchise upon women; but that Italian woman will not be permitted to vote unless she goes perhaps a distance of sixty or seventy miles, states her case to a judge, and from that judge obtains a certificate. I submit, Sir, that the Acting Solicitor General should particularly consider that phase of the case. I am unable to understand why this disability has been placed upon friendly-foreigners, if you like; but those are

not friendly or unfriendly foreigners, they are British subjects. Nothing has been alleged to their detriment, no charges have sheen made against them, and why should they be disfranchised and why should these impediments be placed in their way? I really cannot see the purpose of it. On the 24th May, 1918, we were just as wise as we are now. We had no greater reason on that date to be influenced by war difficulties than we are to-day-in fact, we were closer then to war conditions, and those conditions were more closely affecting us than they are at the present time. Nevertheless by an Act passed at that time, Chapter 20 of the Statutes of 1918, we said:
1. (1) Every female person shall be entitled to vote at a Dominion election who,-
(a)	is a British subject;
(b)	is of the full age of twenty-one years and upwardsand so on. lI could very well stop there, Mr. Chairman, and say that on the 24th day of May, 1918, we solemnly reached the conclusion that any woman in this country who was a British subject was entitled to vote. We had gone so far in that Act as not only to make them British subjects-those who were British subjects before-but to confer the franchise upon them. The hon. member for West Vancouver said a few minutes ago that we were not taking anything from these women which they now possess, and the House seemed to concur in the statement. But that cannot be the case, because by the Act from which I have quoted we conferred the right of voting on these very women from whom we are now taking it. Therefore we are depriving them of something which they now possess, a thing which we should not do. Now the Act from which I have quoted goes on to state as to the qualifications which a woman should possess to be entitled to vote:
(c)	possesses the qualifications which would entitle a male person to vote at a Dominion election in the province in which said female person seeks to vote: Provided that a married woman or an unmarried daughter living with her father or mother shall be deemed to have any necessary qualification as to property or income if the husband or either of the parents is so qualified.
We propose to repeal that Act by the Bill now before the House, and I think it is a serious matter for a deliberative body such as ours to coolly and deliberately say that	we were	wrong in	1918	whenwe conferred this right upon these women,	and that	we are	now	goingto take	it away	from them.	Therecertainly	ought to	be some	grave rea-

son before we do anything of that kind. If women should come to this country- French women, Italian women, Syrian women, Polish women-if any of these foreigners should come here, settle down, help to develop the country, and live happily and faithfully with their husbands bringing up their families, what reason is there for depriving these people of the right we conferred upon them a little over a year ago. I cannot see the reason of the justice of it, and I 'would be sorry that we should do anything so harsh and drastic in this Parliament unless we were moved to do so by the very best of reasons.
The hon. member for Dorchester this afternoon presented the legal nature of this question in a manner so perfectly clear that there seems to be no necessity of dealing further with that phase of it. .Section eleven of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1919 states:
The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.
There is a contradiction here. We say in one breath that this woman is a British subject, but in section 29 of the Bill that is now before us we say that it was impossible for her ever to be so. I ask the committee to consider the language of subsection 2 of section 29 of the Bill that is now before the committee:
For the purposes of this Act, the allegiance or nationality of a person, as it was at the birth of such person, shall be deemed Incapable of being changed-
We say there that it was absolutely impossible for the woman, or the children who are affected by this legislation to be what we say they are under the provisions of the Act we passed last year. As I said before, I submit that only very grave reasons indeed should cause us to put ourselves in such a position. I can understand this Parliament passing drastic legislation during the war, but now that we have signed Treaties of Peace with our leading enemies, why should we attempt to perpetuate the war spirit for the rest of our lives and inflict these disabilities on people who were friendly to us during the war? The hon. minister says that we can get over these difficulties by obtaining the certificate mentioned in this subsection. Ajs a rule when a judge is called upon to grant a certificate, certain things are laid down which must 'be proved before the certificate can be granted. I must confess that were I acting as a judge I would be entirely at a loss to know what kind of

evidence it was necessary to present to me to qualify an applicant for a certificate. If the minister is determined to force this thing through, I -would suggest that he add a clause stating specifically what a lawyer appearing for an applicant for one of these certificates would have to prove, so that he would know how to proceed before a judge. As the clause stands, everything is left absolutely to the discretion of the judge, and no lawyer can tell upon what grounds a judge will exercise that discretion. I submit further to the hon. minister, that in a district of probably 100 miles in length and 50 -miles in width with only a single judge there will be no accommodation to meet the requirements of the thousands of men and women who will have to apply for these certificates. When our men had to make application for exemption from military service we had a military tribunal at every turn of the road.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand other
business will be taken to-night. I therefore move that the committee rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Ocean and river service-to continue subsidies for wrecking plants-Quebec and British Columbia, $35,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was understood the other evening that we might refer to some of the items that had already been carried. There is just one matter that I wish to speak to the minister about, and while it does not pertain wholly to his department, I think he will be interested in it. I refer to the car ferry between Cape Tormentine and Port Borden, Prince Edward Island. I understand that some dredging work was carried on at the car ferry terminals a little while ago and then it was discontinued. I am informed that a possible consequence of the discontinuance of the dredging may be that the car ferry will, one of these days, suffer an injury that will necessitate rather costly repairs. As the minister has to do with the repairing of these vessels, I should be glad if he would take the matter under review, and also have it taken up with the Department of Railways and Canals which, I think, co-operates with his department in this work. If this is a matter exclusively for the Department of Railways and Canals, I will bring it up when the Railway Estimates are before the committee.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: As this is a matter that pertains exclusively to the Department of Railways and Canals, I would ask my hon. friend to bring it up when the Railway Estimates are before the committee. In the meantime, I shall be very glad to speak to my colleague about tlhe matter.


Mr. McISAAC:: As we have the privilege of referring to some matters that came up before, I wish to make a few remarks regarding the item of $2,000,000 to provide for the construction of an icebreaking steamer to be used on the river -St. Lawrence. When this matter was under consideration before, some remarks were made to the effect that this icebreaker might be so constructed as to be used, on occasion, as an auxiliary to the Prince Edward Island car ferry plying between Port Borden and Cape Tormentine. I am particularly desirous that no improper impression may be made regarding this icebreaker. I-f I understand this item aright, the appropriation asked for is for the construction of a large icebreaker to ply on the river St. Lawrence to facilitate shipping -by keeping the river open in the winter season, and also for the purpose of assisting ships that may be in distress, and things of that sort. Should she be equipped with rails on her deck so as to be able to carry cars across the Strait as is done by the Prince Edward Island': car ferry, and so be able to assist that car-ferry if necessary, I shall be extremely-pleased; but there is nothing in the item to indicate that such is the case. Last winter, I remember well, some ships were in distress in the -St. Lawrence and urgent requests were made that the car ferry should leave her route and come to the rescue o-f those ships. For the -car ferry to undertake such service would be a very great inconvenience, as it would completely tie up traffic between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. If I am not properly informed and do not properly apprehend the meaning and intention of this appropriation, I shall be pleased if the minister will put me right,


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The icebreaker will be used primarily for, the breaking of ice' in the St. Lawrence at the end of the season and towards the opening of navigation.

It will also keep the ice bridge open at Cap Rouge. It will be so powerful that it will be able to go to the assistance of ocean vessels leaving Montreal or Quebec late in the season. Last year, as the hon. member says, two of the Government steamers got stuck in the ice, and if we had had an icebreaker, there would have been no difficulty whatever in at once rescuing both these steamers from the ice pack in which they found themselves.
The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) the otheT evening asked if I would look into the question of having the icebreaker so constructed that it would also serve as a car ferry. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but as I promised my hon. friend, the other evening, I shall take technical advice on the point when tenders are being called for. I cannot make any more definite statement at the moment. I know that all hon. members realize the importance to navigation on the St. Lawrence and on our east coast of having an icebreaker of this great strength. We only have two icebreakers at the present time, the Montcalm and the Lady Grey, neither of which is strong enough to cope with thick ice at certain seasons of the year. During the war an icebreaker similar to the one we are going to have constructed was sold to the Russian Government. The Earl Grey and the Minto were also sold, leaving us with only the Montcalm and the Lady Grey.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Inasmuch as I made the suggestion the other evening to which the minister has been kind enough to refer, I should like to say just a further word in regard to it. As the minister is aware, there is at the present time simply one car ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Since that car ferry has come into use the people of the Island have become dependent on it to a degree that is almost exclusive. The result is that if anything should happen to the ferry at any moment, the Island will be shut off and there will not be available the variety of smaller craft that there would have been before people had come to rely so much on this car ferry. It is generally felt on the Island that there ought to be two car ferries, because if anything happens to the present one the people will be left without the accommodation to which they have become accustomed, and at certain seasons of the year that might prove very embarrassing indeed. It was for that reason I asked the minister to consider, at the time this great

icebreaker is being constructed, whether it would not be possible to have it so designed that in off seasons and in times of emergency it might be used to accomodate the people of the Island, just as a second car ferry would accommodate them if it existed. I would not have made the suggestion if it had not been that one or two marine experts have themselves expressed their opinion to me that this large icebreaker could be constructed in that way. It is perfectly true that its main purpose wdll he to break ice in the St. Lawrence, but I would point out to the minister that it will only be doing icebreaking work during the winter season. In the summer it will be lying idle, and it could then very well be used, I should think, as a car ferry while the present car ferry is laid up for a month or a couple of weeks for repairs, as it always is during the summer months. If this icebreaker were constructed in the way I have suggested it would not only serve that purpose but would also be available in time of emergency. What is wanted by the people of the Island, and those who are being served by the people of the Island is a two-car-ferry service, and just as soon as the Government feel justified in making this provision I think that such a service should be commenced. But in these days of much needed economy, if anything can be done, in the interval to fill in, if we can find a way to " kill two birds with one stone," I believe it will he very much in the interests of all concerned.


Mr. DUFF:: The ice in the St. Lawrence attains such a thickness that I am very doubtful if any icebreaker can be constructed that will be able to break the ice during the entire winter season. There is no question, however, that an icebreaker would be of very great service in the St. Lawrence during part of the season, and perhaps that is sufficient reason for the minister going ahead and getting built the most powerful icebreaker that can be constructed.
My object in rising, however, was not to discuss icebreaking on the 8t. Lawrence so much as the ice conditions on the Atlantic coast during the winter months. We endeavour to do a good deal of business from Sydney to Yarmouth and right up to the Bay of Fundy all the year round, but we are sometimes handicapped during the months of December, January and February by the ice conditions encountered on that coast. During the past two or three years

we have endeavoured to get the Department of Marine or the Department of Naval Affairs to help us out when ice conditions were such that we could not get along without help, and the department have always been willing to give us any assistance they could. But I have one complaint to make, and it is this: During the present season practically the only ice steamer which the department owns was tied up at the dock at Dartmouth from November till April. I refer to the Stanley, and I say it was bad business on the part of somebody to so arrange for the repairs to that steamer that she was tied up at the dock during all that time. If the Montcalm or some other icebreaker had been available the department would have been quite justified in having the Stanley laid up for repairs. It is well known that the Nova Scotia and Atlantic coast is very dangerous in the winter season. Nearly every week some vessel will be sending in S.O.S. calls for assistance from Sable island or the Atlantic ocean. Whenever a call came last winter there was no steamer of the department to send out to vessels in distress. On one occasion this year when the steamer Powattan owned by the United States, was crossing the Atlantic with troops, she lost her propeller and for ten days was at the mercy of the waves. It was only by an act of Providence that the steamer did not founder, perhaps with all hands on board. The Government at last did send the Lady Laurier to her assistance, and this vessel under the captaincy of Captain Travis, did good work, in company with United States tug boats, in helping to get the vessel to port. But my complaint is that the Stanley should have been available during the winter months to go to the assistance of steamers in distress. The only steamer which the department could send to the assistance of vessels off the Nova Scotia coast was a little steamer called the Petrel, which is one of the fishery protective service boats. I may say that the captain and crew of that steamer did everything possible for the people at Shelburne, Lockport, Liverpool and Lunenburg, but the trouble was the steamer was not large enough to do the work that was required of her. If the Stanley or a steamer of that class had been available, and the Stanley should have been available, business men along the coast of Nova Scotia would not have had to suffer the inconvenience they did during those months. I am not finding fault, so much as pointing out
to the minister that next year he should provide a steamer for this service so that business men along the coast of Nova Scotia need not be put to the inconvenience they were this winter. I understand the Department of Naval Affairs has a steamer called the Acadia which could have done this work, but she was laid up at Halifax. I would suggest that next year the steamer be stationed at Lunenburg or Liverpool to serve the people along the coast of Nova Scotia.


Mr. COPP:: I want to ask a questicn of the minister with regard to the icebieaki lg steamer.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not wiiit to interfere with the liberty of the comwittee, but it must be understood that this discussion which is not relevant to the item before the committee, takes place by unanimous consent. Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that the items already agreed to be again discussed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood we were discussing this item by agreement.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out that no agreement can bind the committee. Any agreement must be confirmed by the unanimous consent of the committee.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood the minister to say that this icebreaking steamer was to replace one built two years ago and sold to the Russian Government. I should like to know when that steamer was sold, what she cost, and what was received by the Government for her. '


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The icebieukar in?
question was the J. D. Hazen, which cost, in round figures, $1,000,000. She was sold for the same sum to the Russian Government, and I understand that payment was made promptly.
[DOT] [DOT]


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister says he understands that she has been paid for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I suppose he knows it to be so.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


William Duff: Is this the steamer which
Vickers built?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


William Duff: I am informed that Vieker'a Limited sold this steamer for over a million

and a half dollars; that is to say, they made a profit, over and above the cost price, of $600,000. Is that correct?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I was not a member of the late Government, and I have no knowledge of the transaction. All I know is that this steamer cost $1,000,000, and was sold for that sum to the Russian Government. The Canadian Government has been paid, and I had no knowledge of any profit which any outsider may have made out of the ship.


William Duff: Does the minister mean to
say that the contract which the Dominion Government had with Vickers was for a million dollars, or that that was the sum which the Russian Government paid Vickers for this steamer?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Vickers did not sell the steamer. This icebreaker was sold through the British Government to the Russian Government. If it passed into any other hands afterwards I have no knowledge of the fact.


William Duff: It seems strange to me that if the Canadian Government made a contract with Vickers to build a ship Vickers should have sold the ship to the Russian Government or any other government. My information is that the Dominion Government, instead of carrying out the transaction themselves when inquiry was made with reference to the ship by the Russian Government, left the matter in the hands of Vickers, who made a profit of $600,000 more than the contract with the Canadian Government amounted to. Now, is that information correct or not? It seems to me that it is bad business on the part of the previous Minister of Marine. I wish my hon. friend (Mr. Ballantyne) to understand that I am not casting any reflections on him, because I know that he is too good a business man to stand for such a transaction. I am informed that through gross negligence on the part of the former minister the Canadian people lost $600,000 in this one transaction, the British or the Russian Government, whichever it was, having paid that sum to Vickers more than the amount of the contract which they had with the Government.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I can only say again that I have no knowledge of this alleged transaction. I am very well acquainted with my predecessor in office, and I am sure that the transaction was proper so far as he was concerned. The icebreaker was sold at cost price to Russia, through the

British Government, and we were paid for it. The statement of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is news to me, and I am not in a position to say anything further than I have already said on the matter.


William Duff: The matter might have been done by Order in Council. I do not blame the former minister personally. It is likely that an Order in Council was passed, and therefore the w'hole Government would be responsible.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My colleague, the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who was a member of the late Government, tells me that the icebreaker was not sold through Vickers but direct to the Russian Government through the British Government.


William Duff: I understand that the Government had a contract "with Vickers to build the icebreaker, and that about the time she was completed the Russian Government made inquiries for such a steamer, and instead of the Canadian Government doing the business themselves and selling the icebreaker direct to the Russian Government they allowed Vickers to sell it, with the result that Vickers obtained from *the Russian Government some $600,000 more than the contract price which the Canadian Government had agreed upon with them. I desire to know whether that information is correct, because if it is not I certainly should like to get some explanation of the matter. I do not want to accuse the previous Government of having done something which they did not do, but I have stated the information which has reached me from a reliable source, and I think the minister should clear the matter up.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is rather difficult for me to understand how the hon. gentleman could get such information, because this icebreaker was sold to the Russian Government in the way I have stated. The transfer was made from the Canadian Government to the Russian Government, the British Government having merely acted as an intermediary, and I cannot see where Vickers came into the transaction at all.


William Duff: That is just what I want to know. My information is that they got $600,000 which should have gone into the Canadian treasury. How did that happen?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall not insist upon the minister giving us any information about this icebreaker, the J. D. Hazen. I

remember that the question was up before the Public Accounts Committee some time ago, but I have not sufficiently taxed my memory with what took place to make any precise statement in regard to the matter at the present time. I know however that it was not just the simple proposition which the minister says it was. My purpose in speaking on this question is merely to say this:	The minister cannot escape responsibility by saying that the transaction took place before he beoame a minister. I would be sorry to say that the changes in the Department of Marine were somewhat akin to apostolic succession, but there is in the department a sufficient succession for the minister to be absolutely responsible for what took place in the department before he took charge of it, particularly while his own party was in power. But whether it was his own party or not, under constitutional ministerial responsibility, he-must account to this committee for everything that took place in his department. While I do hot wish to press the minister for information, I do not want him to get off with the excuse that this took place under some other minister and that consequently he is not responsible.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When I asked the minister a few moments ago about the icebreaker that was sold to the Russian Government, I had in mind the following statement which the minister made on April 23, in reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Robb):
I cannot give any more information than I gave last year. The icebreaker J. D. Hazen, which cost approximately $1,000,000, was sold to the Russian Government. The officers of my department have made every effort during the last few months to get trace of her, but have heen unable to do so.
Why were the officers trying to get trace of the J. D. Hazen if she had been bought and paid for by the Russian Government?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the Canadian
Government had been able to get trace of the vessel, we thought that we might be able to buy her back at less cost than would be involved in building a new one. My department, therefore, instituted inquiries to that end through the High Commissioner in London, but without success.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The answer is quite reasonable, Mr. Chairman. The minister did not make this explanation at the time; consequently I did not understand why his department wanted to get trace of the vessel.


Mr. BOYS:: The matter to which my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) refers was the subject of
an inquiry, in 1916 I think it was, before the Public Accounts Committee, and at that time the matter was fully gone into. The late Auditor General, Mr. Fraser, was disposed at one time to criticise the department, but as will be seen by a reference to the testimony which he gave before the committee on that occasion, in the end he absolutely exonerated the department. The whole thing is set out in quite a number of pages of evidence. I refer the hon. gentleman particularly to the evidence of the Auditor General, who, I think, first brought the matter to the attention of the committee.


William Duff: I am obliged to my hon.
friend (Mr. Boys) for his explanation. But I think it would be better if the minister would lay the information and papers on the Table.


William Alves Boys: It is on record now.
'< Mr. DUFF:	Personally I would be
willing to look the matter up, but that would not furnish other hon. members with the information which they may desire. I suggest, therefore, that the minister lay on the Table all the papers connected with this transaction.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be glad indeed to do that.
For the maintenance and improvements ot the Sorel shipyard, shops and offices, as well as operating expenses-$65,000.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I was not here when some of the other items were discussed, and if you will permit me I would like to make a few remarks with regard to one or two of them.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member may discuss them under this item. The committee has given its unanimous consent that reference be made to items already agreed to.


William Duff: The Border City Star, published at Windsor, Ontario, in its issue of April 26 last, contained a statement to the effect that the Marine Department were cooperating with the provincial authorities of Ontario in preventing the carrying of liquor from the Canadian side across the Detroit river to the American side, and that to that end the department had placed a number of swift motor cruisers on the Detroit river. Is that statement correct? And, if so, why is the Federal Government interfering with the shipment of liquor from Canada to the United States? If we have prohibition in Canada, it seems to me that
[DOT] 2108

the more avenues of escape there are for this liquor, the better; instead of preventing its shipment to the United States, we should use every effort to get it out of the country.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sure that the hon. member does not believe everything he reads in the columns of the press,-with all due respect to the press. I assure him at once that the Department of Marine did not place any motor boats at the disposal of the liquor authorities-was that what my hon. friend said?


William Duff: Provincial authorities.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Or the provincial
authorities, either. There is nothing whatever in the report to which my hon. friend refers.


William Duff: I am sure the minister is
glad that I brought this report to his attention. I myself did not believe it, but I wanted to give the minister and his department a chance to deny it. With regard to item "Registration of Shipping, $6,000" may I ask the minister, who are the registrars of shipping in Nova Scotia?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not the
names at hand, but the registrars are really the collectors of customs. There are eighty ports of registry in Canada, twenty-two of which are in Nova Scotia.


William Duff: Who is the registrar at
Lunenburg?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry that I cannot give his name, but he is the collector of customs. Perhaps the hon. member will recall his name.


William Duff: Is he the registrar, or the acting registrar?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: He is the acting
registrar, I understand.


William Duff: Last year the gentleman
who had acted for a number of years as collector of customs and registrar of shipping resigned on account of ill-health. After I heard	that a certain gentleman
had been appointed as acting collector of customs and acting registrar of shipping,	I took	the matter up,
first with the Customs Department. After lengthy correspondence I was able to get information as to how the appointment was made. I understood from the legislation recently passed by Parliament that all appointments to the Civil Service had to be made by the Civil Service Commission, and was relying upon that fact,

but was surprised to receive the statement from the Department of Customs that the appointing of the Acting Registrar of Shipping was not made by the Civil Service Commission but by a gentleman known as the Commissioner of Customs. I do not yet know who that gentleman is, nor do I care; but I want to say that the Government should not come here and tell us that the appointments are made by the Civil Service Commission, and then go outside and make them through the Commissioner of Customs or anybody else. I have no objection from a personal standpoint to this appointment and it might be quite proper for the Commissioner of Customs or the Minister of Customs to make the appointment-although I think the Commissioner of Customs is the "goat" in this case because the Acting Minister of Customs was the gentleman who actually exercised the power and not the commissioner. I do find fault, however, upon the ground that the Minister of Marine, in my opinion, is just as capable as the Minister of Customs and should have the selection of his own officers. When I found this gentleman had been appointed Acting Registrar of Shipping I first took the matter up with the Customs Department, but could get no satisfaction there. I then applied to the Civil Service Commission, and I have a letter from the chairman of that body in which he definitely states that the Civil Service Commission had nothing whatever to do with this appointment. I then wrote the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who at that time was Acting Minister of Marine, and he expressed considerable surprise that the appointment had gone through without consultation with him, either as the Acting Minister of Marine or as the godfather of the Civil Service Commission. When the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) himself returned to his office last winter I wrote him a letter and asked him how and why the appointment was made, and received a letter from him to the following effect:
Office of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada,
Ottawa, 31st December, 1919.
Dear Sir,-In answer to your letter of the 18th instant, I beg to inform you that the practice which has obtained in Canada since Confederation has been that the collector, or other chief officer of Customs, at a port of registry is ex officio the Registrar of Shipping, and the Canadian Order in Council passed on the 26th March, 1874, instituting Lunenburg a port of registry, appointed the collector of Customs at the port Registrar of Shipping.
... , . .. - - [DOT]

When Mr. Mack, therefore, was appointed acting collector of Customs at Lunenburg, he ipso facto became acting registrar of shipping. X am not, as you may well understand, familiar with the manner in which Mr. Mack and Mr. Anderson were appointed to the Customs Service.
I gather from your letter that no permanent appointment as collector has yet been made. Following the previous custom and the requirement of the Order in Council creating Lunenburg a port of registry whoever becomes the permanent officer will be the registrar.
Yours very truly,
C. C. Ballantyne.
You will see, Mr. Chairman, that neither the Minister of Marine nor his officials had anything whatever to do with the appointment of this official. Yet if there is one port in Nova Scotia where the office of registrar is an important one it is the port of Lunenburg, not because the business is so large but because there are so many transactions. The business done is on a co-operative basis there being sometimes as many as sixty-four owners in one ship. I do not think any such condition exists in any other port of Canada as exists there, and for that reason there are more transfers of ships or shares in ships by the registrar at Lunenburg than perhaps anywhere else in the world. The appointment of the officer in question was a very important one, and it seems to me that the Minister of Marine should certainly have had something to do with it. For this reason:	If
the Registrar of shipping does not act in conformity with the law, the Minister of Marine or his officials here will get the blame. Therefore that minister should not for one moment longer allow the Minister of Customs, or any officer belonging to the Customs Department, to make such an appointment. It is time the Order in Council passed in 1874 was repealed, and the Minister of Marine given the power to select his own officials. I repeat that the office of registrar in the town of Lunenburg is an important one, and if the present incumbent is only acting registrar, the Minister of Marine should be very careful before he allows the Minister of Customs to make that appointment permanent.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Possibly the hon. gentleman is aware that the Minister of Marine has not the authority, under the Shipping Act, to appoint registrars of shipping. That power is vested in the Minister of Customs only.


William Duff: That is what I said.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The passage of an
Order in Council would not be sufficient
to meet the situation. I would have to bring in legislation repealing clause 11 of the Shipping Act which vests the authority in the Minister of Customs.


William Duff: The minister did not grasp the purport of what I said. Perhaps I did not -make myself sufficiently clear. I did not say the minister could Temedy matters by passing an Order in Council. I said [DOT]that the minister was acting at the present time under an Order in Council which was passed in 1874. I further said that it was high time that that Order in Council was repealed, and that it was a shame that the minister at present did not have the power to appoint his own officials.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: I understand
that at present the registrar of shipping charges fees, and that the owner of a ship has to pay all the expenses of a survey and of registry. Is this money spent at the head office or is it expended in the several ports?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The money is spent at the head office. Owing to the large increase of Canadian registered tonnage there are far more ships being registered now than has ever been the case in past yeaTS. On the 31st December, 1919, there were 8,615 vessels registered at ports in Canada; therefore the hon. gentleman will see how the number of ships under Canadian registry has grown.


Mr. FIELDINO:: Is any portion of this
money applied to augmenting the salary of the collector of customs-is that the way it is done, or does the collector of customs receive an extra salary for these duties?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The various registrars throughout Canada are paid by a scale of fees as follows: For vessels under fifty tons net register, $3-


William Stevens Fielding: That is the fee which a shipowner pays?


William Duff: While the minister is getting that information will he permit me to say that the owners of the vessel pay all the fees in connection with the registry of vessels when they are built. Is it also a fact that the vessel owners when they transfer the ships or shares pay $1 for getting a bill of sale and fifty cents for a declaration of ownership. This money is paid to the registrar of shipping, and he puts that amount into his own pocket. This is a special amount which he receives and keeps, apart from his salary.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I find that I confused the fees for surveys with the registry

of shipping. There are no fees charged for the registry of a ship.


William Duff: The owner pays the cost.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.
Agencies, rents and contingencies-5198,000.


William Duff: I would like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter concerning the agency at Halifax. Air. Harvey, who is in charge of that agency, is, so far as I am aware, a capable official. For a great many years the Department of Marine and Naval Affairs has been paying for a telephone in his house, and this telephone was a very great convenience to the business men of Halifax or of any other part of Nova Scotia when there is any trouble along the shore and they wish to communicate with Mr. Harvey. But I notice that that "great family journal," the Halifax Herald-the minister will know what paper I am referring to-publishes a cartoon headed, "Cutting the life-line." I do not know if the minister can see this cartoon which I am holding up for his attention, but it refers to the fact that the Marine Department has ordered Mr. Harvey to discontinue his house telephone or they would hold him responsible for the expense. It is as important to have a telephone in Mr. Harvey's house as in his office for the purpose of looking after the work on the Nova Scotia coast, and I feel sure the Halifax Herald was mistaken when it circulated that report all over the province to the worry of a number of our business men who appreciate the importance of being able to keep in touch with Mr. Harvey in case of emergency. I would like to know if this statement is correct.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member is quite correct when he surmises that the article is unwarranted. The telephone is not going to be taken out of Mr, Harvey's house.
Salaries and allowances to lightkeepers- $650,000.


Mr. LEGER:: I would like to call the attention of the minister to the salaries of the lightkeepers. When the items for bonuses were before the House I called to his attention the inadequate salaries paid to these men, and I was told that the bonus regulations did not apply to them. I find from the Auditor General's report that the salaries range from $84 to about $300. These salaries were small enough when the cost of living was normal, when, for instance, a barrel of flour could be purchased for $3 or $4, as against the current price of $14

or $15,-and so with other commodities. On a former occasion I urged the necessity of helping these men, and I hope that the minister will now see his way clear to give their case his favourable consideration, for these men perform splendid service at various isolated places on the coast.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Mr. STEIN:: Will these lighthouse keepers share in the bonus we voted the other day for the Civil Service? I put that question to the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and I received a very nice smile from him, but no answer. So I expect the smile was affirmative, and that these men will share in the bonus.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The $60,000 voted at the two previous sessions represented bonuses to these men, but there will be no further bonuses granted from the vote my hon. friend refers to. As I said in answer to the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger) a new classification has been made by the Civil Service Commission, and all grades of lighthouse keepers will now receive higher salaries.
Air. GA'UVREAU: If I am well informed, a delegation from the lighthouse keepers came here some time ago, and they left entirely pleased with what they were told, fully expecting that what they asked for would be granted to them. While I am on my (feet I would call the attention of the minister to a request for a cable between Green Island and the mainland in the County of Temiscouata. I am sorry to say that, according to a letter I received from the department, no record is kept of the understanding arrived at many years ago between the Hon. Mr. Brodeur and myself. It was understood at that time that connection would be made between Red island in

the St. Lawrence and Green island lighthouse and then with the mainland by means of the Kamouraska Telephone Company. The understanding was that the Government would provide the cable and the company would pay all expenses for laying the cable and the cost of operation. It was found at that time that that was too much for 'the company. The company now ask me if there is any way of getting 8,000 feet of cable to connect Green island with the mainland. Everybody who knows the river Sf. Lawrence opposite the river Saguenay realizes the difficulties that exist in that part of the river. It is one of the most dangerous spots on the river St. Lawrence, and if the department can afford the expense of providing a cable to connect Green Island lighthouse with the mainland, a great deal of expense will be saved to the department, and vessels going up or down the St. Lawrence will be afforded greater safety. I was told the other day by the deputy minister-and I think he is right- that it would be hard at the present time ito ask for an appropriation for 8,000 feet of cable; but in view of the fact that if 8,000 feet of cable could be provided to connect Green Island lighthouse with the mainland, great aid will be given to navigation on the river St. Lawrence, I hope the minister, who received so well the deputation of lighthouse keepers, will see his way clear to grant that request. It is only for 8,000 feet of cable, and the company will lay the cable and pay all the cost of operation in the years to come. The amount is a small one after all, and the minister would be wise in granting that request, thereby ensuring greater safety to vessels plying on the river St. Lawrence.


Jacques Bureau: What does the -hon. member mean by Green island? Does he -mean lie Verte?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Green island is an
island in the centre of the St. Lawrence and lie Verte is the parish on the north side.
Mr. BUREAiU: Is it called Green Island or lie Verte?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: On the map it is
called Green island, but we can say either Green island or He Verte. I think the minister will understand me, all right. I would not like him to think I came from a "green" part of the country.


Jacques Bureau: No, the hon. member is all right. I am asking this question merely for the purpose of information because I
know that island is designated in our local statutes as lie Verte. I know that a Geographical Commission was appointed to rebaptize certain localities, but I had occasion to look up some matters in connection with this island, and in the local statues I found it is designated as lie Verte. That is the reason I a-sked the question.
Mr. B'ALLANTYNE: I have not as perfect a knowledge of both languages as my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) has, but I do not see any difference between He Verte and Green -Island. I will find out whether it should be officially called Green Island or lie Verte. Personally, I should prefer the French name.


Jacques Bureau: This is not a question
of knowledge, and I do not want the minister to think I am trying to read him a lesson in either French or English. That has never been my custom and I am not going to start now, but I want to know how the name "Green Island" occurred on the map when the property is designated in -our statutes as lie Verte. If the change has been made by the Geographical Cbm-*mission, well and good; but as this may lead to confusion, I want to find out whether Green island is the same piece of land, as is designated in our statutes as He Verte.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: What about my cable now?
iMr. BALLANTYNE-: In reply to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau), I am. informed that no record can be found on the files of the Marine Department that my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, made any such arrangement. I cannot make a definite promise to the hon. member to-night. I have already informed the members of -the committee that we must practise economy, -but I shall be glad to look into the matter, and if there is any possible way of .meeting the views of the hon. member, it will be a pleasure for me to do so.
Mr. MoISAAC: I am not sure whether or not I understood the minister aright regarding the increase of $50,000 in the whole appropriation for salaries and allowances to lighthouse keepers, whether it is for the purpose of increasing the salaries or whether it is to be applied by way of bonus. I understand that for the past two or three years certain of the lighthouse keepers-I do not know about them all-have received a bonus. Is 'this all the increase, or will any of those lighthouse

keepers participate by way of bonus in the proposed appropriation of $12,500,000 for bonuses to civil servants?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They will not participate in the bonus, part of which has already 'been voted. A moment ago I referred to the fact that at the last session of Parliament, and the previous one, $60,000 had been voted on each occasion. The Civil Service Commission have gone over the salaries of the lighthouse keepers; I have the reclassification here, and if 1 passes the House, there will be a substantial increase in salaries for all of the lg 1 house keepers. If 'the hon. member wishes me to let him know what the increase will be for any particular class of lighthouse keepers, I shall be very glad to give him the information.


Mr DUFF:: I think every member of the committee will agree with me that if there are any public officials in Canada who deserve to be well paid for their services, they are the men who look after the lighthouses on both coasts and on the St. Lawrence and other rivers. Most of these men have to live on islands away from their friends and relatives; they deserve every consideration on the part of this Government, and I feel sure that the minister had that in mind in increasing the appropriation by the reasonable amount of $50,000.
I rose particularly to refer to the item for maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and icebreakers, which item was discussed in my absence. I should like to refer for a moment to the salaries or wages paid to the crews of Government steamers. The men on our Government steamers, many of whom I know very well, are the poorest paid men in Canada. Let me take, for instance, the Government steamer "Lady Laurier," which has done excellent work on the Nova Scotia coast. I find, looking at the Auditor General's report, that Captain Travis, captain of this vessel, received last year only $1,600, or in round figures about $135 a month. That is disgraceful. No captain of a small hundred-ton boat receives a smaller wage than Captain Travis of the "Lady Laurier," and a man with his experience and ability should receive at least $200 a month. I do not know Captain Travis personally, except to meet him perhaps once in two years, but it is a shame that a man of his experience should be receiving only $1,600 a year and $100 of a bonus from the people of this country for his services. On the same page, I find that the first officer of that boat received only $100 per month.

A mate on either a small steamer or a sailing vessel receives $150 a month, and it seems to me that a mate on a Government steamer (should receive a larger salary than a mate on a small ship.
I would suggest to the minister that he go over the salary schedule of his officers and",, see if something cannot be done towards compensating adequately these hardworking men. They have to go along the coast of Nova Scotia and out in mid-Atlantic in all kinds of weather. In the summer they encounter fog, and in the winter cold weather and storms, and it seems to me they are certainly deserving of an increase. One thing I cannot understand is why they stay in the Government service for such a small salary. Any time during the last five years it would have been no trouble for Captain Travis to get $200 or $250 a month. The same thing applies to the captain of the icebreaker Montcalm, Captain Hearn, who is one of the most capable navigators in Canada. There is no question that he is a first-class man, yet he only receives $135 a month. Why, any ordinary nigger gets almost that much on board a ship. I might say that on little fishing schooners cooks are receiving $250 a month. Captain Hearn's cook gets only $80 a month. That is a scandalous state of affairs. The same is true of the steamer Stanley. The Stanley is an absolute necessity on 'the coast. Her captain is very much underpaid. Captain Slawenwhite, the mate, has lived in Halifax for ten or fifteen years. He has no vote in my county, he votes in Halifax, so it cannot be said I am trying to catch a vote or talking for political purposes. He .possesses a master's certificate and is paid only $110 or $120 per month. When he was at sea before he got into the King's uniform, and when wages were much lower, he was receiving perhaps $150 in wages alone, and if he left the Government service he would get at least $200 a month. I bring these matters to the attention of the minister because I have received several communications from men on the Government steamers within the last few months asking me to point out to the minister and to the committee when the Estimates were up how inadequate their salaries were. The minister should certainly do something to give these men a decent wage, for they cannot live on the wages they get. Captain Slawenwhite lives in Halifax, and I do not see how he can live there and raise his family on $110 a month. I appeal once more to the minister to see if something cannot be done to pay these men a decent wage.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
has been quoting the salaries. The blue-book does not show the bonuses.


William Duff: I mentioned bonuses.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Captain Hearn of Ihe Montcalm gets $140 a month and a bonus of $19. The captain of the Stanley gets $135 a month and $17 bonus. When the reclassification goes into effect both of these officers will receive $160 a month. I must say that I do not know what steamship owner pays a cook $250 a month.


William Duff: Fishing vessels.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am glad to know there is so much money in the fishing business "that they can afford to pay a cook $250 a month.


William Duff: The crew pay half and the owners half.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They must have first-class chefs on those vessels. While I am in sympathy with doing everything that can be done to pay as good salaries as possible to the crews of the Government ships, I would certainly not be prepared to recommend to the committee a salary of $250 a month for cooks. We have very good cooks on our ships, and we get them for very much less than that. We pay the chief cook $70 a month, and the second cook $45 a month. There is a great deal of difference between $70 and $200 a month. Under re-classification all the members of the crews of the Government ships will have an increase in salary, but we cannot hope to compete with the very fanciful salaries paid by fishing vessels.


William Duff: This $250 is only paid by
fishing vessels with a crew perhaps of nineteen men. A vessel with a crew of perhaps six or seven men would pay their cooks $100 a month. If the owners of sailing vessels in Nova Scotia can afford to pay their cooks $100, surely the people of Canada will be willing to pay their cooks an equal amount, if not a little more.
Tbe minister has referred to the reclassification of the Civil Service. I would not advise him to pay his officers according to the re-classification schedules. If I were minister, I would kick up my heels if anybody asked me to go by that classification. It provides for able seamen, for instance, a salary of only $60 a month. The minister must know that it is impossible in this enlightened' age to get able seamen for that amount. While the Arthur Young
Company might be able to get them, nobody on the Atlantic or Pacific coast could hire his sailors for $60, and if the minister had to hold his ships in port until he got them at that price they would be tied up much longer than they are at present. Under the re-classification, a first-class master is to get $160 a month, a seoond-class master $140, third-class $120, and fourth-class $105. A first-class mate is supposed to get $100, and a second-class mate $80 a month. The minister ought not to be willing to pay the rates set out in this classification, or to -continue to pay the wages he is now paying to the men on these steamers. These men should be paid for doing Government work just as much as they would be paid by any private corporation.


John Howard Sinclair: I notice an increase of $50,000 in the item for salaries for lighthouse keepers. I -should like to know if this increase applies generally -to lighthouse keepers and whether they will all participate in the increase. I understand there is to be a classification. Will every class of lighthouse keeper participate in some degree in the increase?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The increase of
$50,000 applies only to certain classes, only to the more important lighthouses, not lighthouses in -minor waters. It applies to lighthouses -that are Tunning all the year Toun-d.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that the keepers in the smaller lighthouses were poorly paid, and I hardly think that it was a proper adjustment to spend the -money altogether on the larger lighthouses while the smaller ones do not participate.


Mr. LALOR:: Does this increase apply
only to Nova Scotia? Are we on lake Erie and lake Ontario to expect an increase for lighthouse keepers as well?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The classification of the Civil Service applies to all lighthouse keepers throughout Canada. In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) I may say that the minor lighthouse keepers give only a portion of their time to looking after lights. I admit that their remuneration is small, -but their duties are not very onerous. However, they also will come in for an increase under the re-classification.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose it is
true that the lighthouse keepers on the St. Lawrence and -the Great Lakes, which are frozen up part of the year, have considerable spare time during which they can add

to their income. But that is not true as regards the Maritime Provinces and the coasts where the lighthouse keepers work all winter, night and day. They have always to be on hand to light the lamps, and some of these men are poorly paid indeed. In the increase of $50,000 I trust they will participate.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I desire to add a word or two on behalf of the small lighthouse keepers. It may be true that those on the inland waters where the lakes and rivers are frozen part of the year have that portion of the winter months to themselves to do something else, but I should like to know what there is for them to do during that time. There is very little opportunity for them to make any money during the winter months, and practically speaking they have to depend entirely on the salaries they get for that work. I can see no reason why men occupying these important and responsible positions should be treated any differently, so far as bonuses are concerned, from any other men in the Civil Service. Where men who occupy clerical positions in the departments in Ottawa and perform their duties faithfully and well, receive salaries on which it is considered they cannot live, we unanimously agree that it is right that they should share in the bonus. Why, therefore, should the bonus not be given to those men who are tied down to such responsible duties as these men have to perform? In a city like Ottawa civil servants are in a position to combine their forces and press their demands in a way in which those who occupy isolated government positions cannot; but that does not strengthen the claim of the urban civil servants, nor does it weaken the claim of those who are not fortunate enough to be able to join forces and urge their case upon the Government. It is merely a question of fair play and just treatment, and I want to place myself on record as being of the opinion that if the bonus can be justifiably paid to civil servants in Ottawa and elsewhere it can just as reasonably and justifiably be extended so as to supplement the very small salaries which these lightkeepers have hitherto received.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: I am not quite clear as to the division line between the large and the small lighthouses. Perhaps the minister can tell us what class of lighthouse peepers will get the increase.
. Mr. BALLANTYNE: There are nineteen classes in all. The bonuses voted for the past two sessions of $60,000 each were dis-

(tributed among all lighthouse keepers, except certain men who can hardly come within that definition, such as men who [DOT]hang up lights at the end of wharfs. They of course would not share in this additional *$50,000, but all the lighthouse keepers in ,the Maritime Provinces and on the Great Lakes will. Those men who hang up lights would not participate in the increase.


John Howard Sinclair: As a matter of
fact they are not lighthouse keepers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, but we have no .other name for them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I desire to say something about St. Paul's island which is an important station on the Atlantic coast. It happens to be part of my riding and I [DOT]would ask the minister how many light-keepers and other employees of that kind [DOT]there are on that island, and whether they are all in permanent appointments. I should like to know .also what their present salaries are and what are their prospects under the new classification.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The question which the hon. gentleman 'asks is a poser. For ,the time being, I regret to say, I cannot answer it. I shall look up the information, ,and in the meantime, in order that we may make some progress, I would ask, with the consent of the hon. member, that we propeed to the next item.
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses- $750,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: Some two years ago I jnade application to the Department of .Marine for the erection of a light at Grand Etang, Inverness. I have endeavoured to .keep in touch with the matter up to now but I have not received very much information or encouragement. May I ask what has been done in connection with the matter?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am afraid I have [DOT]to tell the same old story. Owing to the expenses of the war, the large public debt, *and the necessity for rigid economy, [DOT]the matter will have to stand in abeyance [DOT]as a great many other important items have had to stand. But as soon as I can get a sufficient vote I shall be glad to see that it [DOT]is attended to.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am just as anxious as the minister that we should practise all the economy possible, but I am afraid that things have come to such a pass in the department that their economies are rather destructive than constructive. The port is

a new one; a lot of shipping goes on there,-and there is one light. What we want is ; 9 range light which will enable our vessels I to come at night, because the coast in thaty vicinity is very rough. If any of our flshingH vessels were wrecked on the coast, it would f* he remembered that the minister and those!-associated with him had destroyed the only; means of safety we have, that is, our life-' saving station at Chetieamp, in this fever for economy in small matters, while most-extravagant in large matters. I for one cannot see where the economy comes in when the lives and property of the fishermen are at stake. It is economy to preserve the lives and property of the fishermen and to encourage them- in their industry. But that has not been done. I propose to discuss on a later occasion some of the things that have been done during the last three years along the coast of Inverness which have been against the interests of the fishermen; are without any regard for their lives and property. But, so far as this small item is concerned, I wish to put myself on record as not- accepting the argument of the minister based on the ground of economy. I cannot accept it, because it is not reasonable and without a thought for our great industry.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In pre-war times
the Department of Marine had an item in the Estimates each year for new construction and maintenance of lighthouses, sometimes as high as $1,000,000. I do not think that I shall be divulging a iState secret when I say that I had a very much larger amount than $400,000 provided for this year, but 1 was not able to persuade my colleagues to see the matter in the same light that I did, and I was asked to keep the amount down to $400,000. While I regret that, I am in hearty accord with the other members of the Government in accepting the principle that- our ordinary expenditures must be in keeping with our ordinary revenue. While I would like to do more, we really have not the money, and we must cut the coat according to the cloth.


William Duff: I wish to emphasize what my hon. friend (Mr. Chisholm) has said; aids to navigation, whether on the St. Lawrence or in the Maritime Provinces or on the Pacific coast, should not be neglected. The minister's argument with regard to economy while it is not without some force, is not a sufficient reason why, if a lighthouse or range light is necessary at Grand Etang, it should not be put there. The minister said that he had proposed a much larger 135
-amount than $400,000 for lights and aids to Inavigatioii in his original Estimates, but [that Council did not accede to his request. Swell, it is quite evident that the Minister of 1 Marine has not as much pull with his colleagues as the Minister of the Interior (Mr. jMeighen) has, because, if my memory is -correct, the Minister of the Interior succeeded in getting his colleagues to agree to the appropriation of $100,000 more for parks in the West this year than was voted last year. It seems to me that there is more necessity for expenditure on lighthouses than there is for expenditure on parks in the West. It would be better if the Minister of the Interior would turn this $100,000 over to his colleague the Minister of Marine so that the life and property of people on both coasts of this country may be properly protected.


Archibald Blake McCoig: There is a great deal in
what the -hon. member (Mr. Duff) has just said. Complaints of this kind are being made by marine men not only in Nova Scotia, but also in Ontario. Considerable complaint has come from captains who are navigating on lake Erie with regard to the conditions at Erieau. Representations have been made to the department with regard to the danger to life and to vessels which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the reply has been that no accidents have taken place there, and that consequently there is no necessity for further action. While those who are thoroughly conversant with that section of the country and who know the difficulties that they have to contend with in making port with such valuable cargoes as go into Erieau state that further aids to navigation are necessary, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent in other departments upon works or enterprises which are not necessary. On stormy nights when heavy seas are rolling it would be a great comfort to those who are responsible for the navigation of vessels to know that they may enter harbour in safety. I hope that the minister will afford to the captains who are sailing on lake Erie, particularly those who go in and out of Erieau harbour, those facilities which can be provided at a cost of only a few hundred dollars and which would' ensure the safety of many lives and the protection of much valuable property.


John Howard Sinclair: I see by the Auditor General's report that this item also includes buoy service. We have a large number of very valuable buoys on the coasts of the Maritime Provinces on which the coun-



try has spent a great deal of money. Many of these are taken up and stored during the winter season and put out again in the following season. Last year we had numerous complaints from captains that most of the summer had passed before these buoys were put out. I hope that the same thing will not happen this year. I do not know why it happened; we have the equipment for the putting out of these buoys. There must be some lack of efficiency when they are not set out early in the spring so that vessels may have the advantage of them during the season when they are most needed.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is a great deal in what the hon. member says, but the department is very short of ships. The Earl Grey and the Minto, when we had them in that service, assisted in placing the buoys, as did the Aranmore, which, unfortunately, was wrecked last fall. The shortage of ships causes the delay, but we shall do the very best we can.


John Howard Sinclair: What ships have you in this service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Stanley and the Lady Laurier. We hope that we may get the Aranmore off the place on which she is stranded so that she too may be available.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say if any of the buoys have been put out this season yet?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Certainly a very
large number but I am not prepared to state what the exact number is.


Alexander William Chisholm: The inquiry of my
hon. friend has reference to larger buoys. I want to get some information respecting the smaller buoys that are taken up in the fall of the year when the ice makes along the coast. I would like to know ' if there is any scheme in operation as a result of which these buoys are placed by somebody. There are a great many points in my own county where the buoys were not placed until I looked after the matter myself. Now somebody ought to be in charge of this duty, but there appears to be nobody who is held responsible for placing the buoys. Will the minister tell me who is really responsible for placing these smaller buoys leading to the ports?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Will my hon. friend state what particular port he has reference to?


Alexander William Chisholm: I would say Margaree, for instance.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That particular
port was under the Halifax agency until this year, but there has been a redistribution of the territory covered by the agencies, and it is now under the Charlottetown agency. I will write to the agent there and find out the cause of the delay that the hon. member refers to.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is an officer
down there who lis responsible for the placing of these buoys. Why does not the department give him instruction to look after them in the fall and put them in place in the spring, all along this coast? Then there would he no trouble about the matter. There is a contractor, I understand, who is paid so much to do the work, but he does not take the responsibility, he receives no instructions until he reports to the department, or somebody does, that the buoys have not been placed. Then some official of the department will send instructions to him, but such a procedure involves delay, and may result in very disastrous consequences.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The agent at Charlottetown has certainly been very remiss in his duties if what the hon. gentleman states is a fact.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is true.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have no right to doubt what the hon. member states. The responsibility rests upon the agent at Charlottetown to see that all these buoys are placed, and if the work has not been done I must hold him responsible for the delay. I will see that a letter is promptly sent to him, and I will communicate a copy of the reply to my hon. friend, when I receive it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What has been done
to repair the present South Bar lighthouse in the harbour of Sydney, which is a very important light? I understand the foundations were damaged a short time ago, and it is imperative they should be repaired and the lighthouse opened as speedily as possible.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Doubtless the hon. gentleman is aware that the department has a lighthouse board that studies all these questiqns pertaining to the future need of new lighthouses. I will bring the matter to the attention of the board at their next meeting.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There has been a lighthouse on the South Bar for seventy, or perhaps one hundred years. A new light-

house was built a few years ago but the department thought it advisable to erect it further out at the point of the Bar than where the old lighthouse was. However, the foundations gave way, I suppose owing to the action of the sea, and the lightkeeper had to leave the new structure and make use of the old lighthouse. That must be very embarrassing to shipowners, or seamen, entering the port, and it is very desirable that the new lighthouse should be repaired and put in shape as speedily as possible.


William Duff: I would ask how many
lighthouses there are on the Newfoundland coast the up-keep of which is paid by the Dominion Government as well as the salaries of the keepers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Seven is the number.


William Duff: I understand the Dominion Government pays the cost of upkeep and the salaries of the keepers?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, we do.


William Duff: I would call the minister's attention to a very important matter in connection with the condition of the lighthouses existing on that coast. The Cape Race lighthouse is perhaps one of the best, if not the best, on the North American continent. That lighthouse is of the utmost importance to navigators in both coming and going across the Atlantic. As the minister is well aware, for the last number of years-in fact ever since vessels have sailed the waters-there have been a great many wrecks either on the east side or on the west side of Cape Race lighthouse. Many steamers have been wrecked, and in some cases numerous lives have been lost. In conversation with a number of captains of steamers they made a suggestion to me which they asked me to bring to the attention of Parliament and the minister, and this is the suggestion: Just west of Cape Race, at the entrance of Trepessey Bay is Mistake point, and a little farther west is Cape Pine or )St. Shotts. If a powerful gas buoy with a groaner were placed about five or ten miles from the shore, half-way between those two capes, the steamers passing this area would either see the light or the gas buoy or hear the groaner, and know their position. It would be the means of saving a great many ships and a great many lives. As the minister knows, the shares of Cape Race are very rugged and precipitous and the water is very deep. Vessels cannot tell, by soundings exactly 135}	,
where they are until they place their jib-boom, or bow sometimes, up against the rocks. In bad or foggy weather when they are passing Cape Race it is difficult to tell their position, and the swift current there often takes them right onto the coast. The captains to whom I spoke suggested to me that it would be in the interest of shipping to have a large gas buoy at that point. Of course the providing of such an important aid to navigation at that point may be an international affair, and therefore the Newfoundland government might be asked to co-operate. Certainly the minister would be well justified in providing a sufficient amount of money to establish a gas buoy there as has been suggested. In view of the conditions which prevail there it is surprising that the suggestion was not made much earlier. Had it been carried into effect it would have been the means of saving many lives, and millions of dollars of property would not have been lost.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Canadian Government have never undertaken the responsibility of placing gas buoys along the Newfoundland coast. It is a matter that has engaged the attention of the Newfoundland government and which the Canadian Government have taken up with them from time to time. The subject is one to which 1 will with pleasure direct to the attention of the Newfoundland government. Every hon. gentleman will appreciate the fact that the Canadian Government could not properly maintain or look after a gas buoy so far distant from Canadian territory, and we have never, as I say, undertaken such a responsibility. However, there is a good deal in what the hon. member states, and I will again call the attention of the Newfoundland government to the matter.


Alexander William Chisholm: I would like to get information in respect of the Lighthouse Board-its personnel, its location, its duties, dates of meeting, and so forth. If I can get this information on another item I shall not press for it now.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The personnel of the board consists of the Deputy Minister of Marine, the chief engineer, a representative from the Shipping Federation, the Commissioner of Lights, and a representative from the Dominion Marine Association. They have no set dates for meeting, but they meet quite frequently whenever business demands it. Their duties relate to lighthouse needs.


Alexander William Chisholm: When the minister again brings down these Estimates would he get me a report from the hoard as to what they have done in respect to the application for a range light at Grand Ma-tane? My people want this information, and I want it, and surely it is little enough for us to know what has been done, this matter having been before the board for three years or longer. What has the board done?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will be very glad to give that information.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not quite satisfied with the information given me in regard to the Bar light in Sydney harbour. I would like to know what the board intends to do about repairing that lighthouse, which was erected at a cost of $100,000 and is about to fall down. The matter is of great concern to the people of Sydney and North Sydney.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot make a definite promise, but I think in the very near future a new lighthouse will be built on the site of the one that was swept away.
Mr. McOOIiG: When can the captains navigating lake Erie waters expect any better light service than they are receiving at the present time at Erieau? A heavy revenue is derived at this port from the. valuable cargoes that are brought in there, and the very best lighthouse system should be provided, especially in view of the local dangers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have a representative of the Lake Carriers Association on the Lighthouse Board, but at the moment I could not say whether he has made any representations in regard to the lighting system at this port. However, I will look into the matter and let the hon. member know.
Construction of lights and aids to navigations, including regulations of traffic in the Detroit river, and such other places as may be found necessary-$400,000.


Mr. POWER:: What is meant by the regulation of traffic in the Detroit river?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is what might be called a dual control of traffic on the Detroit river: The Americans look after their part, and the Department of Marine look-after our part.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am informed, it may be incorrectly, that the Department of Marine and Fisheries have certain gasoline boats on the Detroit river acting as revenue cut-

ters to prevent intoxicating liquor entering the United States. I would like to know whether that is true or not.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member could not have been in the House when a similar question was asked 'by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I informed the latter gentleman that there was no foundation for the press report, and I make the same reply to my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: What portion of this vote is used in regulating 'traffic on the Detroit river?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: About $5,000.
Signal service-$65,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister dismissed my question rather summarily in regard to iS't. Paul's island. I do not expect any information to-night, but when will the minister be able to give me that information?	,


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will be very glad to give the hon. member the fullest detailed information not later than two days from now, and possibly to-morrow.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the increase of $5,000 for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Salaries.
Administration of pilotage-$4'00,000.


Mr. WIGMORE:: I do not wish to take up the time of the committee, because I think it has been very well taken up tonight on individual matters, and I find from my experience that it is a great deal easier to get satisfaction by taking up these individual matters with the minister or the deputy minister rather than raising them on the floor of the House. I have always had very great consideration shown to me in connection with every matter that I have taken up with the department, and I have taken up many different matters. I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact- that a very serious condition exists in the Bay of Fundy and the harbour of St. John, due to the unfortunate sinking of a pilot boat by a steamer coming up the bay. When I first applied to the department they with their usual promptness took the matter up at once and sent for the agent at St. John to discuss it with them. I would like to know if any definite arrangements have been arrived at. I know the department have for the last two or three years been considering the pilotage system in St. John arid the Bay of Fundy with a

view to putting it on a permanent basis similar to what they have established at Halifax and other ports. Pilot matters in St. John have been handled during the past number of years by a Board of Pilot Commissioners, some of whom were appointed by the Government, some by the city of St. John, and others by the Board o'f Trade of St. John. But they feel that the time has now arrived when the Government should take some definite action and take this matter of pilotage over entirely, and either supply the pilots with proper boats and equipment or else make some other suitable arrangements the Government may have in mind. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister, because I know the people, the Board of Trade and the shipping interests of >St. John, are very anxious to know what decision the Government have reached. If possible, I should like the minister to give me some information along those lines, and if he cannot give me it now, I should like to know when I may expect this information.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am happy to inform the hotn. member that all arrangements have been made, and the Marine Department will take over the pilotage service of St. John by the 15th May.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a very
large increase, namely, $200,000 in this item. It seems to me that the usual experience when the Government takes over anything is that it becomes more expensive. There is no reason why the ships should not pay for pilotage. (During the last few years shipowners have been making money, and it is a mistake that the Government should assume any expenditure in connection with pilotage, because all this pilotage service should be paid by the ships. I do not know what the plans of the minister jare or whether there is a contra account for this item or not. There may be one: but if so, iff would be well to have an explanation of it, because the item is a very large one, and I should like to lay down the principle that whatever is expended in pilotage on the coasts of this Dominion/ should be a tax on the shipping of the Dominion and not on the ordinary taxpayer.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
is quite correct. The pilotage dues will cover all the expenditure. This is merely a book-keeping entry, but the pilotage dues in each pilotage district throughout Canada fully cover the expenditure.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister estimate that the additional dues will amount to $200,000?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, and, I think, more.


Mr. OOPP:: The minister has given a
very short statement in reference to taking over the pilotage service at the port of St. John. Is this a special arrangement for St. John harbour, or is it general throughout the Dominion?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
will no doubt recall that at the last session of Parliament legislation was passed vesting the pilotage authority for the port of St, John as well as the other principal pilotage districts in the Governor in Council, and that really makes the Minister of Marine the pilotage authority. The system that the port o:f iSt. John will come under now is similar to what has been in force in the pilotage districts of Montreal and -Quebec for a long number of years. This does away entirely with the local pilotage board, and a local superintendent of pilots will be appointed at St. John, and' he will report to the General Superintendent of Pilots -at Ottawa. The pilotage districts that now c-orne under the Minister' of Marine are Halifax, (Sydney, St. John,. Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver and Victoria-.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If 'I understand the matter
correctly, pilots have in the past been licensed to do business, so to speak, on their own hook. Are these pilots who have been operating in the port of St. John to be kept on by the Government ,as Government appointees to do the work, or what will become of them?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The department
will, of course, retain in the service the pilots Who are there now, and what ever pilot boats they have the department will have to take over and pay for. The only difference is that we are transferring the -authority of -the pilotage district o-f St. John from a local board to the Minister of Marine at Ottawa.


Alexander William Chisholm: How does the income from pilotage dues compare with the expenditure of last year, throughout the Dominion?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This is the first
season that all these pilotage districts apart from the -districts of Montreal and Quebec come under the Minister of Marine; but judging by our experience with those two districts, our revenue has been -somewhat greater than the expenditure.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Is the minister considering the matter of giving compensation to the owner of the pilot boat that was lost in the Bay of Fundy by being run down by a Canadian Government Merchant Marine boat?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Certainly. Unfortunately there was a collision in the Bay of Fundy between a Canadian Government Merchant Marine ship called the "Canadian Voyageur'' and a pilot boat, but we shall have to negotiate with the pilots of St. John and see that they do not lose anything on account of the collision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it accepted that the fault was that of the Government boat?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: An investigation will have to be held; I cannot know who will be held responsible for the collision until such time as the court of inquiry comes to a decision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought the minister was committing his department a little too soon. It does not follow that because a smaller vessel collides with a larger one, the larger vessel was at fault. I am sure, if the pilot lost his vessel by reason of any faulty seamanship on the part of the captain of the larger vessel, the man should be recompensed, but' the facts will have to be ascertained first and the minister will decide on those facts. I notice the minister states that the pilotage district of the harbour of St. John is to be taken over on the 15th May. Does the same remark apply to the harbour of Sydney?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, the pilotage district of Sydney has not yet been formally taken over, and I cannot say just when it will be.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The season which is now under way will be carried on under the old system?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Do I understand the minister to say generally that the receipts from pilotage dues throughout the Dominion balance the expenditures? I find in the Auditor General's Report that $91,076.75 was expended in the administration of pilotage. I was endeavouring to lay down the principle that the expenditure in administering the pilotage should be in some way a tax on the shipping of the country, and I understood the minister to say that he was receiving more than he was spending as regards pilotage. Does
IMr. Ballantyne.]
that statement cover expenditures throughout the Dominion, or was the minister referring only to the river St. Lawrence and the harbour of St. John?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have not yet had one full season's experience with all the districts that I have mentioned, but as far as I can judge, we should come out on the right side. To take, for instance, the pilotage districts of Vancouver and Victoria from the 1st January to 31st March, the gross earnings amounted to $23,292.86 and the expenses were $20,505.49. I would not care to make too positive a statement, but my judgment is that in 1920 we ought to come out even, or very nearly so, if not a little on the right side.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister is not prepared to give a general statement for the whole Dominion showing the receipts and expenditures of each of the districts?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not the figures here, but I know that 'the revenue does take care of the expenditure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the financial year in this connection be the same as the Government financial year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


William Duff: Whenever we hear of a business merger, we are told that overhead charges and administrative costs are to be cut down. The Minister of Marine is going to merge all the pilotage districts under one head in the Department of Marine. I presume that will result in a saving in the cost of administration. I would suggest to the minister that instead of having commissioners at each port he turn the work of the district over to the marine agents at the different ports-the marine agents a!t Halifax, Sydney, Vancouver and other places. In that way I think the Government would save a great deal of money.
I am sorry my hon. friend (Mr. Wig-more) has been delaying the Estimates of the minister, especially in view of the lecture which he read hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. He comes before the committee and asks if the owners of the "Canadian Voyageur" are going to pay for the pilot boat that was sunk in the Bay of Fundy, when he could get that information without any trouble by going to the Hunter Block and seeing the minister or his deputy. My hon, friend is not treating the committee or the minister right in bringing up a small matter like that

before the committee. I am surprised if the hon. membeT (Mr. Wigmore) has so much influence with the Department of Marine, that for a number of days or weeks there has been no pilot boat on the Bay of Fundy. If he has so much influence with the department he should have seen that the pilot boat was replaced within a day or two after the sinking. Apparently, he has not as much influence with the department as he thinks he has. Evidently some official of the department has been pulling his leg.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Pilot boats are not picked up every day.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Nor sunk every day.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: As soon as the matter was called to the attention of the department they got busy at once and they have made arrangements along these lines. As to taking up different matters with the department, I think the time of this committee has been taken up with very simple matters that do not concern the ordinary member at all. These matters of detail concerning the different constituencies have take up the greater part of the time of this committee. They could have been dealt with more expeditiously by going to see the minister ot his deputy at his office.


William Duff: If the hon. member i(s correct, then the statement I made a moment ago is also correct. If'it is not necessary for us to get up on the floor of this House and refer to matters affecting our constituents, why did my hon. friend get up on his feet and bring to the attention of the minister the fact that a pilot boat had been sunk in the Bay of Fundy and ask who was going to pay for the damages? I can tell my hon. friend that I am going to ask as many questions as I like, and I shall not allow him to tell me when to sit down.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Wigmore) may be excused for bringing to the attention of the minister the matter he did, because it gave the minister ;an opportunity of making a statement which, I have no doubt, my hon. friend will be very glad to have go down to the people of St. John who are deeply interested in this matter. However, I am not concerned with * whether my hon. friend (Mr. Wigmore) thinks we are wasting time or not. I want to ask a few questions in regard to this pilotage business, as it is somewhat new to me. Are the pilotage arrangements which the minister has made for the port of St. John to be extended to the smaller ports
along the Bay of Fundy, or are they confined to that one port?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: St. John only.


Alexander William Chisholm: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Before doing that
I desire to say, as Minister of Marine, and

speaking also for the Government, that it certainly is the privilege of hon. members in this committee to ask as many questions as they like. I have made no objection at all, and I should be very sorry to see the discussion cut too short, because hon. members and the public generally have the right to know how the money voted by this cotn-mittee is going to be spent, and if increases are being made, the reasons therefore.
With regard to hon. members, calling on the department over which I have the honour to preside, I think hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that I show them just as much attention and courtesy, and just as great a desire'to meet their wishes and requests, as I do hon. gentlemen on this side. I congratulate the constituency of Inverness in having such an'able and persistent representative in this House. I find no fault whatever with his coming to the department as often as he does, I know the particular case he has in mind, but the only reason I could not meet his views in that matter was again, the lack of money. It is, of course, the duty of myself and every one connected with the department to be courteous and to endeavour to meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen so far as we can.
In regard to the question, who shall be in charge of the pilots in the various districts, we are doing away altogether with the local pilotage hoards and we shall have a local superintendent in the different pilotage divisions. My only reason for bringing the pilotage authority under the Department of Marine was that there might be an increase in efficiency. I shall not go into details now, but I am thoroughly satisfied that the pilotage work will be much more efficient under the new system than it has been in the past. The expenditure may be somewhat greater under the new system, but if it is there will be a corresponding increase in the efficiency. There is no necessity for local commissioners because we shall have an experienced man who holds a master mariner's certificate as superintendent of pilotage for each district, and he will be under the general superintendent of pilots, Captain Robertson, who is located at headquarters.


William Duff: These will be new appointees of the Government?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Some of them, yes.


Mr. DENIS:: How long has this new system of pilotage under government control been in effect?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That depends on the pilotage district you have in mind. The districts of Montreal and Quebec have been under the Minister of Marine for the past fifteen years. In fact, the deputy minister informs me that it is longer; they have been under the minister for at least twenty years.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that it is the intention of the department to decrease the number of pilots between the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not aware of such an intention.


Lucien Cannon: I received a communication to-day from a pilot informing me that the number of pilots between Montreal and Quebec was to be decreased from fifty to thirty-five.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is no such intention on the part of the department.
Maintenance and repairs to wharves-$10,000.


Albert James Smith Copp: What wharves does this item refer to?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This is a small vote for repairs that may be needed in connection with various wharves. We cannot tell what particular wharf or wharves will need repairs during the coming year, but I see that last year repairs were made in Nova Scotia amounting to $98.37; Prince Edward Island, $107.45; New Brunswick, $3,675.48; Quebec, $1,618.92; Montreal district, $198.82; Ontario, $1,714.04; British Columbia, $50; general account, $224.42; making an actual expenditure for last year of $7,687.50. We are asking for $2,000 less this year than the previous fiscal year, but we think it better to have a vote of $10,000, even though the expenditure last year was only $7,000 odd, in case the expenditures may amount to two or three thousand dollars more.


Albert James Smith Copp: I want to draw the attention of thevminister to a certain matter, and I think I may be pardoned for so. doing if it may not be altogether within my purview. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Wig-more) has been largely devoting his attention to having the port of St. John properly attended to, and possibly he has not been able to find time to consider matters that are of some importance even though they may not 'be as important as the port of St. John. We have along the river of St. John-it is not in my constituency, but J come from the province-a large number

of wharves which were constructed many years ago iby -the Government of New Brunswick. A few years ago, I understand, an arrangement was made between the local and the Dominion Governments by which these local wharves were to be taken over by tihe Dominion Government, who were to be responsible for their repairs. 1 have not been up the river fox the last year or two, but I have been informed by a number of persons, and have received communications to the same effect, that these wharves are in a bad state of disrepair and that it is impossible for -steamers plying up and down the river to- tie up at the wharves. If the responsibility is upon the Dominion Government I would ask the minister whether a part of this money is to be used in repairing those wharves.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I want to inform my hon. friend that this matter does not come under the Minister of Marine at all. I may further inform the hon. gentleman that I have already taken up the matter with the Department of Public Works, which has charge of these wharves, and while things are not moving as -quickly as some of us may desire, I can assure my hon. friend that -the Acting Minister of Public Works and his officials are looking after the matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for this information, but I should like to have a statement from the minister himself. If my hon. friend has been so successful, and with such quick dispatch has been able to have -matters attended to promptly by the Department of Marine, as he said just now, he might transfer the matter of these -wharves to that department and perhaps he would receive more expeditious service. Evidently the- information he has received from the Department of Public Works is not v?ry reassuring.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Oh, yes.
Mr. -COPP: The matter is not -one of concern to -my -particular constituency, but it appertains to the province from which I come, and I have had communications concerning it. I therefore thought that I would take this opportunity to call the attention of the minister to th-e condition of the wharves in question.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think the hon.
member is aware that the -construction of wharves comes under the Department of Public Works.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is a matter of repairs.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: A -certain number
of these wharves were transferred to the Marine Department, and the amount I am asking is for maintenance in a small way to keep in a proper state of repair those wharves that are under the jurisdiction of the Marine Department.


Lucien Cannon: Where are these wharves?"


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I can give the expenditure by provinces, but I cannot tell where each wharf is located.


Lucien Cannon: I ask this -question because there a number of wharves which I know are in bad condition. I do not bla-me the minister at all, and perhaps it might be well to leave the matter until his colleague has his Estimates before the -committee. I want to be sure, however, who is responsible for the matter.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: A few wharves may have been transferred to the Department of Marine but generally speaking they are under the Department of Public Works.


Lucien Cannon: When the Estimates of
the Department of Public Works comes before the House, will there be a responsible head for that department or will the condition he the same as it is to-day?
Mr. BALLANTYN-E:	There will be a
lesponsible acting head in the person of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. J D Reid).


Alexander William Chisholm: What becomes of the revenues accruing from these wharves?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: A certain percentage goes to the wharfinger, and the balance to the department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For many years I have been bringing to the notice of the minister and his predecessor certain conditions with regard to two wharves in my county which I regard as part of the national railway system. One of them is right beside the railway at Grand Narrows. At that point passengers and freight coming by the railway are transferred to a boat that crosses the lakes over to a main body of Victoria county. It would be impossible for the railway to do business in tjiat section of the county without this wharf; the tracks run out upon it and the goods are transferred from the car to the ferry. I do not think any wharfage fees are collected alongside the railway. But for the landing of freight and passengers at Baddeck on the other side of the lake it was also necessary to build a public wharf. For many

years, while it was under the Public Works Department no fees wrere charged on the Baddeck wharf. These charges are small, but they are very bothersome, and I do think that as these two wharves are really part of the national railway system and absolutely essential to the operation of the road in that part of the country, no fees should be charged in connection with the handling of passengers and freight upon them. One of the reasons given last year for continuing these charges was that there was a wharfinger at Baddeck and that in order to pay him something would have to be charged. Well, the poor wharfinger is dead, and I do not think it is necessary to appoint any one in his place. The agents there look after the wharf, they are good, capable, honest men and they see that it is properly cared for.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: At present there
is no wharfinger at either of these wharves and no dues are being collected. But under the statute we are obliged, I am afraid, to appoint wharfingers as soon as possible and prescribe the required tariff.
To provide for breaking: ice in Thunder Bay, Lake Superior and other points deemed advisable for the good of navigation-$40,000.


John Howard Sinclair: During last winter the weather was very' severe and the harbour of Guysborough was frozen over for five or six weeks. Application was made to the department to have the ice broken and the department did all they could, but there was no suitable boat on the coast to do the work. I think it will be quite possible to have a boat so equipped that it could break ice in these harbours in case of emergency and also perform the ordinary service carried on by the department every year. I would like the minister to look into that matter and see if anything can be done. We are badly in need of an icebreaker at certain seasons on the coasts of the Maritime Provinces.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Stanley will be available as soon as the necessary repairs have been made, and when the new icebreaker is built it is the intention of my department to place the Montcalm down there. A considerable amount of icebreaking is required to be done on the coast of Nova Scotia every year, and I think the Stanley and the Montcalm will be able to cope with the situation,


William Stevens Fielding: May I, then, repeat a request I made to the minister on a previous occasion as respects the ports on the south-
[Mr. McKenzie. 1
ern coast of Nova Scotia? The minister helped us last year to the extent of his equipment, but he has not the proper equipment, and until he gets some additional boats he really cannot give us all the assistance we require.
To provide for telephones at different points throughout the Dominion in connection with aids to navigation-$500.


Alexander William Chisholm: I want to make application to the minister-I made a similar application to the department last year-for a cable to Margaree Island. This is a very important island, where the fishing industry is carried on on a large scale. It is about two miles and a half from the shore. There is a tri-weekly mail service from the mainland to the island, and it is very important that this cable be supplied if that can be done at reasonable cost. I would like the minister to consider the matter, because I think it is very important.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will be very glad to consider it.
Amount required to pay Messrs. Job Bros, for the use of their wharf at Greenly Island- $375.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is that a private wharf?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, the wharf is
owned by Job Bros., and we have to pay them this amount for the use of that wharf.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This appears to be a new
item. Nothing was paid last year.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It appears that the Government have been using this wharf for the past twenty-five years, and have never paid anything for it. Job Bros, made a claim on the department, and the sum of $375 has been agreed upon as the amount which should be paid. It covers a period of a quarter of a century.


Alexander William Chisholm: For what purpose is
the wharf used?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: For the purpose of unloading coal, lumber and provisions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It appears that this
man has the patience of his ancestor. Is he the only Job now living? Where does he reside? The minister steered clear of telling us where he is.


William Stevens Fielding: Job Bros, are a well-known commercial firm in Newfoundland. Are they the parties mentioned here ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They are the only
Jobs that we know.

tMr. DUFF: How much money was paid last year in gratuities, or gifts, to the crews of vessels for saving life on the high seas? Sometimes instead of gratuities the gifts consist of gold watches or binoculars.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member will be good enough to bring the matter up again when we take up the Naval Estimates, under which the vote for life-saving equipment and stations comes, I will be glad to give him the information.
Meteorological Service, including Magnetic Observatory grants of $500 each to Kingston and Montreal Observatories, also allowance of $400 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa- $245,000.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a large increase in this item.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I wish to explain
the reason of the increase of $34,120. Part of it is for the augmentation of salaries, but the principal amount is for the opening up of a station at Winnipeg in connection with the Winnipeg Grain Exchange so that the weather conditions may be set forth throughout the Prairie Provinces. This will be most valuable information to the grain growers.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is it contemplated to increase the salaries of the officers along the coast in connection with the meteorological station who have to do with the weather reports?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, it is not intended to increase the salaries generally.
Steamboat inspection-$105,470.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the object of the increase in this item?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: To increase salaries and appoint a few additional inspectors.


Alexander William Chisholm: Where are these additional inspectors to be appointed?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is to be an
additional man in the province of Ontario, one in British Columbia perhaps, and one at Quebec.


John Howard Sinclair: Who is the inspector in Nova Scotia?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Norman Curry.
Mr. 'CHISHOLM: Where is he located?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Halifax.


John Howard Sinclair: Is he the only
inspector in the province of Nova Scotia?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, there is another inspector named D. J. Murray.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is he also at Halifax?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the duty devolve upon these men of inspecting vessels in all parts of Nova Scotia?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Who has been inspecting in the yard of the Nova Scotia Steel Company?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have the following inspectors in the province of Nova Scotia:	N. A. Curry, D. K. O'Brien, A.
McDomga.ll, D. J. Stevens, and D. J. Murray.
Mr. .T. H. (SINCLAIR:	Where are they
located?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: At Halifax.
Mr. J. H. 'SINCLAIR:	Which inspector
inspects the ships built by the Nova Scotia Steel Company in Trenton, N. S. ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It would be one
o-f the five, but which particular one inspects the Nova Scotia Steel Company's plant I am unable to say.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is one of these officers present all the time while a ship is being built?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister receive reports from these inspectors regularly?
'Mr. BALLANTYNE:	Mr. Macdonald,
Chairman of the Inspecting Board, receives reports regularly.
Mr. J. H. 'SINCLAIR: Are those reports in the department?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.
Progress reported.
On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at eleven p.m.

Friday, May 7, 1920.